Unregistered Sale Agreement Doesn't Confer Title, Cannot Give Protection From Dispossession : Supreme Court

Observing that an unregistered sale agreement does not confer valid title upon the person, the Supreme Court recently refused to grant protection from dispossession to a person who sought title and possession based on an unregistered sale agreement.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran heard the case where the respondents (purchasers) claimed ownership based on a 1982 sale agreement executed by a General Power of Attorney holder of the original landowners. However, the sale agreement was not registered despite being a compulsorily registrable document under the Registration Act, 1908.

The Respondent sought protection from dispossession by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (TSIIC). The Single Judge questioned the title and ownership of the various land possessors along with the Respondent over the suit property vide common order stating that the question of title cannot be decided in writ proceedings but in a civil trial.

The appellants (legal heirs of original landowners) challenged a Telangana High Court Division Bench order that restrained the TSIIC from dispossessing the respondents.

Setting aside the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran placing reliance on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656 stated that unregistered agreements do not confer a valid title. Since the 1982 agreement was not registered, the Respondent cannot be said to have conferred with a good title over the suit property, barring him from claiming protection from dispossession, the court said.

"we must examine the document of 19.03.1982, an agreement which is said to have been validated in the year 2006. We immediately notice that the very contention of the writ petitioners is only that they have obtained proper conveyances by registered sale deeds from Bhavana society, whose claim is under the agreement of 1982, which has not till date been registered and hence cannot be recognized as a valid mode or instrument of transfer of immovable property.."

“As far as the writ petition praying for a direction not to dispossess, we find that the writ petitioners (respondent) to have not established a valid title. We prima facie find the title to be suspect, which would disentitle them from claiming a rightful possession, which also has not been proved.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court restored the High Court's Single Bench decision not to grant protection from dispossession while setting aside the Division Bench's order (which had restrained dispossession).

Also from the judgment - If Original Sale Agreement Is Unregistered, Registration Of Subsequent Instrument Won't Confer Title : Supreme Court

Case Title: MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. VERSUS M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 679

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Yelamanchili Shiva Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv. Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Avi Leuna, Adv. Ms. Khyati Chhabra, Adv. Mr. Maria Jerome J, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J Akshitha, Adv. Mr. J Venkat Sai, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hiren P. Raval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Arshit Anand, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Mr. Aryan Rachh, Adv. Ms. Urmi H. Raval, Adv. Ms. Shreshtha N., Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. S.uday Bhanu, Adv. Mr. Akhila Palem, Adv. Ms. Akhila Palem, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J Akshitha, Adv. Mr. J Venkat Sai, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv. Mr. T Ratnakar, Adv. Mr. Somanatha Padhan, AOR Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR