An unregistered sale deed cannot confer title; a mortgage deed cannot establish ownership.

The respondents’ predecessor instituted Title Suit No. 2/1989, later renumbered as Title Suit No. 249/2006, seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction over approximately 10 lechas of land and a four-room house. The plaintiff alleged that Sadeswar Das first mortgaged the property to him on 22 April 1974 for three years for Rs. 2,500 under a registered mortgage deed, and subsequently executed a sale deed dated 5 November 1974 for Rs. 70,000. The alleged sale deed was presented for registration, but the plaintiff claimed that registration was declined because the land measured only 10 lechas; a registration receipt was produced as Exhibit-2. The defendants denied the plaintiff’s title and asserted long, continuous possession through their predecessor, Bipul Das, while also pleading limitation, non-joinder and adverse possession.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the alleged sale deed was compulsorily registrable and that the plaintiff had failed to prove title and possession. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree and decreed the suit, treating Exhibit-1 as a registered mortgage deed rather than the alleged sale deed and finding the Trial Court’s approach erroneous. The defendants thereafter preferred the present Regular Second Appeal.

Whether the First Appellate Court erred in rejecting the Trial Court’s finding that the alleged sale deed, involving immovable property valued above Rs. 100, required compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Whether the First Appellate Court could decree the suit on the basis of the registered mortgage deed and the registration receipt in the absence of a valid and proved sale deed.

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 requires compulsory registration of instruments creating or transferring rights in immovable property of the prescribed value; an unregistered compulsorily registrable sale deed does not convey title, as affirmed in S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram.

The requirements of registration and stamp duty are independent and cumulative, and a compulsorily registrable unregistered instrument cannot be relied upon to effect the transfer, as explained in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major.

In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and cannot rely on the weakness of the defence, following Union of India v. Vasavi Coop. Housing Society Ltd.

Although a registered document carries a presumption of valid execution, that principle does not transform a mortgage deed into a title deed; under Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a mortgage ordinarily creates only a security interest or limited interest, while ownership remains with the mortgagor.

The Court also noted the requirement under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC that the First Appellate Court formulate appropriate points for determination.

The High Court held that the document relied upon as Exhibit-1 was in fact a registered mortgage deed for a three-year term, not the alleged sale deed. The alleged sale deed dated 5 November 1974 was neither produced and proved as a valid title document nor registered; Exhibit-2 was merely a receipt from the Sub-Registrar’s office and could not itself transfer ownership.

Since the property was valued substantially above Rs. 100, registration was mandatory irrespective of its small area, and the Trial Court was correct in concluding that the unregistered instrument could not convey title.

The First Appellate Court, despite expressly observing that the alleged sale deed remained unproved, nevertheless decreed the suit solely on the basis of the mortgage deed and registration receipt. This was legally impermissible because a mortgage deed does not establish full ownership and the plaintiff bore the burden of proving title independently of the defendants’ failure to adduce evidence.

The mortgage term had also expired in 1977, whereas the suit was instituted in 1989, further weakening the plaintiff’s reliance on Exhibit-1.

The Regular Second Appeal was allowed; the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree dated 9 July 2008 were set aside, and the Trial Court’s decree dated 30 May 2007 dismissing the suit was restored. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.