Madras HC Upholds Rival Buyer’s Title to Plot 45, Rejects Woman’s Claim Under Unregistered 1994 Deed

The plaintiff claimed title to two plots. Her title to Plot No. 46 (Item I) was based on a registered sale deed and was not disputed. For Plot No. 45 (Item II), she relied on an unregistered sale deed dated 14 May 1994 from Govindammal, an heir of the original assignee, and claimed possession.

The defendants relied on a registered sale deed dated 20 September 2004, Ex.B5, and claimed title and possession of Plot No. 45.

The trial court granted the plaintiff a declaration over Plot No. 46 and an injunction, but not a declaration, over Plot No. 45. On appeal, the first appellate court upheld the decision concerning Plot No. 46 but found Ex.A2 invalid and upheld the defendants’ title to Plot No. 45 under Ex.B5.

The plaintiff brought both second appeals.

Section 17 of the Registration Act requires compulsory registration of instruments of sale of immovable property of the relevant value; an unregistered instrument requiring registration does not convey title.

The High Court also considered the principle that title may follow possession in the case of vacant land, but found it did not assist the plaintiff on the evidence in this case.

The second appeals were brought under Section 100 CPC, and the Court considered the substantial questions of law framed for decision.

Bondar Singh v. Nihal Singh, AIR 2003 SC 1905, was cited by the trial court in addressing the unregistered document and collateral use.

The plaintiff’s claim to Plot No. 45 depended on Ex.A2, an unregistered sale deed that required registration. The High Court accepted the first appellate court’s finding that Ex.A2 did not confer title; it also noted the finding that the document was not genuine, including because the stamp paper had been purchased years before the document was written.

By contrast, the first appellate court had accepted the defendants’ registered deed, Ex.B5, as establishing the first defendant’s title, and the defendants had also produced receipts supporting their possession.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the first appellate court’s decision, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s possession argument.

The decree concerning Plot No. 46 remained in the plaintiff’s favour; her claim concerning Plot No. 45 was dismissed, while the defendants’ title to that plot under Ex.B5 was upheld.

No costs were ordered, and the connected civil miscellaneous petitions were closed.