An unregistered sale deed does not transfer title or defeat the recorded owner’s claim.

The appellant-plaintiff claimed that the respondent’s father had sold the suit property to the appellant’s father through an unregistered sale deed, allegedly lost during communal riots in 1980. He asserted that his father had taken possession, constructed a dwelling house, and that he continued to possess and enjoy the property after his father’s death.

The appellant alleged that the respondent attempted to dispossess him on 15.03.2018 and subsequently issued a notice objecting to construction over the land.

The respondent denied any sale and claimed ownership on the basis of revenue records and a registered partition deed dated 23.02.1999, under which the suit property fell to his share.

The respondent filed a counterclaim seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession.

The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit and decreed the counterclaim, holding that the appellant had failed to establish title and was only in permissive possession.

The first appellate court dismissed the appellant’s appeals and affirmed those findings.

Whether the appellant established a valid right, title, and interest in the suit property on the basis of the alleged unregistered sale deed and the revenue-record entries relied upon by him?

Whether the appellant was entitled to confirmation of possession and a perpetual injunction against the respondent, despite the finding that his possession was permissive?

Whether the second appeal involved any substantial question of law warranting interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below?

In a suit seeking declaration of title, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing a clear and legally enforceable title; the defendant’s weakness cannot substitute for proof of the plaintiff’s case.

An unregistered instrument of sale does not convey title where registration is legally required under the Registration Act, 1908.

Revenue or khatian entries are not, by themselves, instruments of title and do not confer ownership; their evidentiary value depends on the circumstances and supporting basis.

A person in permissive possession cannot ordinarily seek an injunction to protect that possession against the true owner, particularly where no plea of adverse possession has been raised.

In a second appeal, interference is permissible only upon the existence of a substantial question of law; concurrent findings of fact supported by proper appreciation of evidence are not interfered with unless perverse.

The High Court found that the appellant neither produced the alleged unregistered sale deed nor otherwise established a valid transfer of title.

Even assuming its existence, the document could not confer title because it was unregistered.

The revenue records relied upon by the appellant did not substantiate his ownership; the respondent’s khatian recorded him in respect of the land, while the entry relied upon by the appellant was found unsupported and unreliable.

The courts below concurrently determined that the appellant’s possession was permissive and that there had been no plea of adverse possession.

Since the appellant failed to prove title or an independent legal basis for protecting possession, the claims for declaration, confirmation of possession, and injunction were untenable.

The High Court further held that the memorandum of second appeal raised only factual objections and disclosed no substantial question of law.

The dismissal of the appellant’s suit and the decree in favour of the respondent for declaration of title and recovery of possession were consequently affirmed.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and any pending applications were disposed of.