Other1 min read

Tenant’s son sold owner's property; buyers reach SC

By · Published by Everything Blog

In short

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the rightful landlord, Mr. Paulin, by striking the purchasers' lawsuit off the register under Article 227 as an abuse of process. Despite promising the Supreme Court that he would vacate, the original tenant executed a 2001 settlement deed to his son, who sold the property in 2012. The District Registrar in Puducherry had already cancelled the purchasers' registered sale deeds in December 2015. Because the tenant had no lawful title to convey, the court held that the subsequent buyers obtained zero legal rights to the property.

Key points

  • The Madras High Court invoked Article 227 to strike off the buyers' injunction suit as a…: The Madras High Court invoked Article 227 to strike off the buyers' injunction suit as a clear abuse of legal process.
  • An evicted tenant holds no lawful ownership and therefore cannot pass legal property titl…: An evicted tenant holds no lawful ownership and therefore cannot pass legal property title to family members through settlement deeds.
  • Subsequent purchasers cannot claim legitimate property rights or protected possession whe…: Subsequent purchasers cannot claim legitimate property rights or protected possession when purchasing land from an individual lacking valid title.

Sources checked by our analysis pipeline: 1

A recent Madras High Court judgement describes how a tenant family defied a Supreme Court tenant eviction order and went so far as to sell the landlord’s property to two third-party buyers. Unaware of the eviction order, the buyers believed the tenant had the right to sell the property and accused the landlord of causing interference in their peaceful possession. The new buyers filed a case against the landlord to restrain him.

In its October 29, 2026 order, The Madras High Court noted that the buyer based his claim on this property on a sale deed signed by the tenant’s son. But the son had no right to sell this property since the Supreme Court had ordered his parents to vacate the property. ) The court therefore found no reason to restrain the landlord.

On this ground, the buyer lost the case and the landlord won.

Also read: Tenant paid Rs 6.5 lakh to buy landlady’s property; SC admits sale agreement as evidence and says possession doesn’t finalise sale without a sale deed

However, Joseph did not leave the property.…

Other