Registered Sale Deed Alone Cannot Prove Ownership, Rules Supreme Court

In a significant ruling in Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. vs. M/S Viswesara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors, the Supreme Court has held that a registered sale deed does not automatically confer ownership of property if the seller lacked legal title. The Court emphasised that ownership must be based on lawful title and not merely on registration formalities.

The verdict came in a case involving 53 acres of land in Raidurg Panmaktha village in Telangana’s Ranga Reddy district, which had been declared surplus under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act in 1975 and vested with the State government. The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran observed that despite having registered sale deeds, the buyers could not establish valid ownership as the original seller, a cooperative society named Bhavana Society, had no legitimate title to the land.

Background of Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. vs. M/S Viswesara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Case

The petitioners were legal heirs of original landowners who challenged a Telangana High Court Division Bench order that had restrained the State from dispossessing individuals who had purchased land from Bhavana Society. These individuals presented registered sale deeds in their favour to claim ownership.

However, the Supreme Court found that Bhavana Society’s claim to the land was based on an unregistered agreement of sale from 1982, which was never formalised through a conveyance deed. Although a so-called “revalidated” version of the agreement surfaced later, the Court found it unreliable and insufficient to establish lawful title.

The Court further noted that a suit filed by the society for specific performance of the 1982 agreement was dismissed in 2001 and never revived.

Supreme Court’s Observations

“There can be no valid transfer of title in the absence of a proper registered deed,” the bench noted. “Registered documents may provide notice of a transaction, but they do not by themselves confer ownership if the seller lacks the right to sell.”

The Court also held that the Telangana High Court had erred in presuming possession in favour of the buyers solely based on interim orders. It clarified that actual and physical possession must be proved and cannot be assumed through interim relief granted in earlier proceedings.

“Reliance on interim orders does not establish lawful possession,” the Court said, while restoring the findings of a single-judge bench that had declined protection against eviction to the buyers.

Rule of Law and Land Reform

The judgement underlined that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to resolve disputed questions of title or possession. The Court stated that when such disputes arise, parties must pursue appropriate remedies before civil courts.

Furthermore, the bench criticised the inconsistent positions taken by the original landowners and their power-of-attorney holders in land ceiling proceedings over the years, describing the pattern as one of shifting claims based on convenience.

The Court concluded that the State government could proceed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act to recover and protect the land, while affected parties retained the right to pursue remedies through proper legal channels.

Key Takeaway: The ruling is a cautionary reminder that purchasers must ensure the seller holds clear and legal title. Mere registration of a deed, without verifying the seller’s ownership rights, cannot protect buyers from eviction or legal challenges.