Back
Unregistered Relinquishment Deed Cannot Transfer Title: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Challenge To Mutation
A Deed Without Registration: Clarifies Rules
In a significant ruling reinforcing the for property transactions, the has held that an unregistered cannot transfer title to immovable property, even if . Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal dismissed a challenging the ’s order that set aside a based on such a deed, underscoring that the requirement of registration is absolute and cannot be waived by the passage of time.
From to : The Long Legal Battle Over a
The dispute traces back to when the name of Buchi Bai was deleted from revenue records concerning the subject property, based on a deed she allegedly executed in favour of her brother, Narayan Soni (the first petitioner). For nearly two decades, the revenue records reflected only Narayan Soni as the owner. In , Buchi Bai initiated proceedings before the for of her name, but later withdrew that application. However, she also filed an appeal before the , challenging the order. The SDO in filing the appeal in —a decision that was affirmed by the in and attained finality.
On merits, the SDO allowed Buchi Bai’s appeal in , holding that the deed was a requiring registration under , and that there was no evidence to show Buchi Bai had voluntarily executed it. The SDO directed of the names of Buchi Bai’s legal heirs, as she had since passed away. The petitioners challenged this order before the , who, in , allowed their revision, citing both delay in filing the appeal and the merits of the deed. The respondents then approached the , which set aside the Commissioner’s order and restored the SDO’s decision. Aggrieved, the petitioners moved the High Court.
The Case for Registration: Why an Unregistered Deed Failed to Transfer Title
The petitioners argued that the deed was not a but a , which does not require registration. They contended that Buchi Bai had admitted its execution and that her name was deleted pursuant to that document. The petitioners also pointed to her long and their longstanding possession over the property.
Justice Agrawal, however, found no merit in these submissions. The Court noted that the Commissioner had impermissibly re-examined the question of delay, as the SDO’s order condoning the delay had been upheld by the in and was not challenged. On the core issue, the Court held that the Commissioner’s reasoning was because, irrespective of the or the presence of witnesses, a that transfers title to immovable property must be registered. Without registration, no title can pass.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court made the following pivotal remarks:
“Even after the long , the requirement of law is that the should be registered, as the title has been transferred by the said deed, and without there being any registered , the title could not be transferred even if it was executed in the presence of two witnesses.”
The Court further observed that the Commissioner’s reliance on the fact that the deed was executed 49 years earlier in the presence of witnesses was misplaced. The legal requirement under the Indian Registration Act and the (Sections 54, 59, and 118) overrides any factual considerations of possession or admission.
Final Verdict: Petition Dismissed, but Other Remedies Open
Concluding that the ’s order did not suffer from any or , the High Court dismissed the . The Court, however, granted the petitioners liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the proper forum for redressal of their claim.
The judgment serves as a clear reminder that in matters of immovable property, —registration is the , and no amount of delay or can substitute for it.
