Registered Sale Deed Is Not the End of the Story
In Indian real estate practice, there is a widely-held belief that once a sale deed is registered, the transaction is complete and the buyer acquires the absolute, title to the property. This assumption is understandable since the registration is statutorily mandated under the Registration Act, 1908 and creates a public record which can be verified even after centuries.
Yet, the jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly clarified that registration, though critical, is merely a procedural event in the lifecycle of a property transaction. It is evidence of the act of conveyance, not a validation of the underlying title. In other words, registration is a necessary legal checkpoint, but it is not, by itself, conclusive proof that the seller had good, marketable and transferable title, nor that the buyer’s ownership is beyond challenge.
This distinction between procedural compliance and substantive title is where most disputes, litigations and unpleasant surprises arise.
Registration Is Not Proof of Ownership: What Supreme Court Has Held
In Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. vs M/s Viswesara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., the Supreme Court reaffirmed a principle that has emerged consistently in recent property jurisprudence: a registered sale deed, by itself, does not confer legal ownership if the vendor lacked lawful title at the time of sale.
A subsequent purchaser cannot derive a better title than the vendor possessed. This finding is based on the rule of nemo dat quod non habet — no one can transfer a better title than they possess — and has been applied by the Court where an original vendor’s title chain was defective due to unregistered antecedent documents.
Role of Registrar vs Civil Courts
The Supreme Court has warned that treating registration as a mini judicial determination of title risks reducing the Sub-Registrar’s office to a quasi-court. In decisions this year, the Court has struck down state rules attempting to require registrars to assess title before registration, precisely because title determination belongs to civil courts, not revenue or registration authorities.
Documents That Do Not Confer Ownership
In brief, transactional documents such as:
- Agreements to sell
- General powers of attorney
- Informal receipts
- Even registered wills
absent compliance with statutory requirements and a valid chain of title, cannot confer ownership.
In Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand, the apex court clarified yet again that immovable property cannot be transferred through instruments other than a valid registered deed of conveyance under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Possession and Continuous Title Are Fundamental
Ownership disputes often revolve as much around possession as documents. The Court has underscored that actual and lawful possession, traceable through a clean chain of title, is indispensable to assert ownership rights effectively. Even where a sale deed is registered in one’s favour, failure to establish lawful possession or to pursue remedies against adverse possessors can result in loss of rights.
In this context, mutations, property tax receipts, and utility bills serve as corroborative indicators of possession, but do not substitute for a valid title. Recent rulings have stressed that mutation entries in revenue records only reflect administrative recognition, not legal ownership — title determination remains the domain of competent civil courts.
Supreme Court Guidance for Practitioners
The Supreme Court’s recent guidance consolidates a long-standing caution for practitioners:
- Trace the Entire Title Chain: Legal due diligence should not stop at the immediate vendor. Verify antecedent documents, ensure past sale deeds and partition were duly registered, and test for gaps in title continuity.
- Corroborate with Possession Evidence: Registration without possession remains incomplete proof of ownership. Continuous, peaceful possession supported by corroborative records strengthens marketable title.
- Treat Registration as Evidence, Not Conclusion: Registration provides prima facie evidence of a transaction. It does not convert a flawed title into a good one, nor does it negate latent defects or earlier competing claims.
- Litigation Preparedness: When disputes arise, courts will look beyond documents to assess the sequence of rights, conduct of parties, and possession history. A registered deed is at times just the starting point and not the finish line.
Documentary Indicators Versus Legal Title
| Document Type | Legal Significance | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Registered Sale Deed | Prima facie evidence of a transaction | Does not cure defective or disputed title |
| Mutation Entries | Administrative recognition of possession | Do not confer or determine ownership |
| Property Tax Receipts | Corroborative proof of possession | Not proof of legal title |
| Utility Bills | Evidence of occupation and use | Cannot replace title documents |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence this year reinforces a fundamental truth of property law: ownership is judged on substance, not mere form. A registered deed is undoubtedly significant, but its legal force is only as strong as the legitimacy of the title it claims to transfer.
If the underlying ownership is defective, disputed, or vitiated by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation, registration alone cannot confer an indefeasible right. For buyers, developers, financiers, and counsel, this elevates the importance of comprehensive title investigation, contractual safeguards, and documentary corroboration that anticipates future challenges.
It calls for an approach to conveyancing that is proactive rather than perfunctory — one that validates the chain of title, tests encumbrances, verifies possession, and aligns with regulatory compliance. In essence, the true measure of ownership lies in the integrity of the transaction and the evidence that supports it, not just in the existence of a registered sale deed.
Written By: Adnan Siddiqui, Partner, King Stubb and Kasiva
