A registered sale deed executed without payment of consideration is void and confers no title.

The original plaintiff (Hampamma) filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction regarding "B" schedule property (Sy. No. 113).

She claimed her grandfather, Mukkannappa, executed a nominal sale deed (Ex.P2) in 1941 in favor of the father of Defendant No. 3 (Linganagouda) to secure a loan, but retained possession.

After repayment, the property was partitioned in 1957 (Ex.P1) among Mukkannappa’s heirs, with the suit land falling to the plaintiff’s father.

Defendant No. 3 later sold the land to Defendant No. 2 (the appellant) in 1993 (Ex.P4).

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court (FAC) reversed the decree, holding the 1941 deed was sham/nominal and that the plaintiff had alternatively perfected title by adverse possession.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in holding that the registered sale deed dated 28.04.1941 (Ex.P2) was a nominal and sham transaction?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property by way of adverse possession?

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which defines "Sale" as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised; without price/consideration, a transaction is not a sale in the eyes of law.

Kewal Krishan v. Rajesh Kumar (2022) and Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi (2025) to establish that a sale deed without consideration is void and does not affect property transfer.

Uttam Chand v. Nathu Ram (2020) and Dagadabai v. Abbas (2017), affirming that a party claiming adverse possession must specifically admit the true owner's title to establish animus possidendi (hostile possession).

The Court analyzed the recitals of Ex.P2 (1941 deed) and found it lacked a specific sale price/consideration, mentioning only debt adjustments without stating a fixed price for transfer.

Under Section 54 of the TP Act, the absence of consideration rendered the deed void and sham.

The Court noted the plaintiff held the original 1941 deed and the property was subsequently partitioned in 1957 without objection from Defendant No. 3’s family for decades.

Regarding adverse possession, the Court found the plaintiff failed to establish the legal requirements because she never admitted the defendants' ownership, a necessary prerequisite for "hostility".

The plaintiff's counsel opted not to press the plea of adverse possession as their primary claim was based on the invalidity of the initial transfer.

It answered Issue No. 2 in the Negative, holding that a plea of adverse possession was not legally sustainable as the plaintiff did not admit the defendant's title.

Despite the rejection of the adverse possession claim, the dismissal of the 1941 deed's validity meant Defendant No. 3 had no title to convey to the appellant (Defendant No. 2). The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the First Appellate Court's decree in favor of the plaintiff.