Unregistered Sale Deed Can't Convey Title Despite Age: Telangana High Court - 2025-04-12

Telangana High Court Upholds Plaintiffs' Claim: Unregistered 1975 Sale Deed Insufficient to Prove Land Title

Sangareddy, Telangana – In a significant judgment delivered by the Honourable Dr. Justice G.Radha Rani , the Telangana High Court has set aside a lower appellate court's decision, reinforcing the principle that an unregistered sale deed, even if decades old, cannot confer title to property. The case, Second Appeal No. 46 of 2007, revolved around a land dispute in Rajampet Village, Medak District, and pitted plaintiffs – the legal heirs of original landowner Vadde Venkaiah – against defendants claiming ownership through a 1975 unregistered sale deed.

Case Background: Battle Over Land Ownership

The plaintiffs initiated the suit seeking declaration of ownership, recovery of possession, and correction of revenue records for land in Survey No. 408/EE. They argued their father, Vadde Venkaiah , was a pattadar and owner, tracing their title back to a registered sale deed from 1966. They contended the defendants' father, Vadde Sailoo , was permitted to cultivate the land on a crop-sharing basis only and had subsequently denied their ownership claim.

The defendants countered, asserting their father purchased the land in 1975 via an unregistered sale deed for Rs. 1,050/- and claimed continuous possession since, thereby perfecting title through adverse possession. They presented an unregistered sale deed (Ex.B1) and argued the plaintiffs were estopped from disputing the sale, with plaintiff No.1 allegedly being an attesting witness.

Trial Court Favors Plaintiffs, Appellate Court Reverses

The trial court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the defendants' evidence, particularly the unregistered sale deed, suspicious and insufficient to prove purchase or adverse possession. However, the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act - cum - V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in the first appeal, reversed this decision. The appellate court deemed the 30-year-old unregistered document genuine, considered an unproven third-party affidavit allegedly admitting the sale, and upheld the defendants' claim of adverse possession.

High Court Intervenes: Emphasizes Legal Principles

Aggrieved by the appellate court's reversal, the plaintiffs filed a Second Appeal in the High Court. Justice Radha Rani framed crucial questions of law, notably whether an unregistered document could establish title simply by virtue of its age and if the appellate court’s judgment suffered from perversity.

Arguments on Appeal:

• Plaintiffs' Counsel: Argued the defendants admitted the plaintiffs' initial ownership and relied on an inadmissible unregistered sale deed (Ex.B1). They highlighted inconsistencies in the defendants' witnesses’ testimonies and disputed the genuineness of the purported third-party affidavit. Counsel cited several Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the inadmissibility of unregistered sale deeds for proving title and the stringent requirements for proving adverse possession.

• Defendants' Counsel: Maintained the 1975 sale, arguing the deed was validated by revenue authorities after impounding and payment of stamp duty and penalty. They asserted plaintiff No.1 was an attesting witness, estopping their claim, and claimed perfected title by adverse possession due to long continuous possession.

High Court's Scrutiny: Unregistered Deed, Perverse Findings

Justice Radha Rani meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal arguments. The High Court noted the trial court’s detailed scrutiny of witness testimonies, highlighting inconsistencies that cast doubt on the genuineness of the sale deed Ex.B1.

Crucially, the High Court reiterated the settled legal position that an unregistered sale deed is inadmissible as evidence of a transaction conferring title, citing Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court stated, “ An un-registered sale deed is not admissible in evidence as per Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and cannot be relied on as evidence of transaction. The buyer would not get legal rights over the property without registration of the sale deed and the same cannot be used as evidence in the Court. ”

The High Court further criticized the appellate court’s reliance on the age of the document (Ex.B1) to presume its genuineness, referring to Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 . The court clarified that while a presumption of genuineness can be drawn for 30-year-old documents, this applies to public documents and not private documents produced from private custody. Moreover, the 30-year period should be reckoned from when the document is presented as evidence, not the date of judgment. The High Court termed the appellate court’s approach "perverse and against the settled principles of law."

Regarding the alleged third-party affidavit, the High Court found its consideration by the appellate court erroneous, as it was not marked as evidence in the trial court and its authenticity was disputed. The court emphasized, " The said disputed document ought not to have been taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court. The observation of the lower Appellate Court that even though the said document was not marked before it, it was part and parcel of the case, was a perverse finding. "

Finally, on adverse possession, the High Court underscored that the defendants failed to establish the essential elements, including hostile animus and continuous possession to the knowledge of the true owner. The court cited precedents stating that possession under an executory contract of sale (as claimed by defendants based on the unregistered deed) cannot be considered adverse possession.

Decision: Trial Court Judgment Restored

Ultimately, the Telangana High Court allowed the Second Appeal, setting aside the appellate court's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration, recovery of possession, and correction of revenue records was thus decreed in their favor.

This judgment serves as a critical reminder of the legal necessity for registration of sale deeds to convey title and the stringent burden of proof required to establish claims of adverse possession. It also highlights the importance of adherence to established principles of evidence and procedure by appellate courts.