Introduction
In a significant judgment delivered on 7th May 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 1866 of 2024), reaffirmed the well-established principle that immovable property can only be legally transferred through a registered instrument of conveyance. The Court categorically held that an unregistered sale agreement cannot form the basis of a valid claim to title or possession, and mere reference to subsequent transactions based on such agreements cannot cure the defect.
This judgment carries far-reaching consequences for property transactions, especially those involving outdated sale agreements or General Power of Attorney (GPA) transactions—commonplace in urban land disputes.
Factual Matrix
The dispute centred on 53 acres of land in Survey No. 83/2 of Raidurg Panmaktha, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The petitioners claimed possession on the basis of registered sale deeds executed in their favour by M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., which in turn relied on an agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982 executed by a GPA holder of the original owners.
However, the title to the land was mired in statutory vesting under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 and the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The subject land had vested in the State in 1975 as surplus land, well before the 1982 agreement was executed. Moreover, the sale agreement was never registered.
Despite a later attempt to validate the agreement in 2006, and the filing of a suit for specific performance (which was dismissed for default), the petitioners continued to assert rights over the property, relying on registered sale deeds purportedly executed by Bhavana Society.
Key Legal Issues
Whether an unregistered sale agreement, executed in 1982 and validated decades later without registration, could form a valid foundation for subsequent conveyance and title.
Whether registered sale deeds based on such defective root documents could confer valid title.
Whether the petitioners, relying on such instruments, could claim protection from dispossession under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the State, having vested interest under land ceiling laws, was barred from taking possession of such land.
Supreme Court’s Findings
- Mandatory Registration Under the Registration Act, 1908
The Court relied on Sections 17, 23, and 34 of the Registration Act, 1908. It held that:
The original agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982 was never registered within the mandatory four-month period, nor within the extended eight-month window provided under the proviso to Section 34.
Hence, it was inadmissible in law to support a transfer of title.
The Court emphasized:
“An unregistered sale agreement, particularly when executed decades ago and never presented for registration, cannot confer title, even if subsequent documents are registered.”
- GPA Sales and SA/GPA/Will Transfers Are Not Valid Modes of Conveyance
Relying on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana [(2012) 1 SCC 656], the Court reiterated:
“Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions like GPA sales or SA/GPA/Will transfers do not amount to valid transfers or convey title.”
The Court clarified that even a registered deed cannot validate a transaction if the foundational document is itself void.
- Fraud and Inconsistency in Documents
The Court took serious note of the existence of two inconsistent sale agreements of the same date (19.03.1982)—one for 125 acres and another for 99 acres—with differing terms, cheque numbers, and payment recitals. These discrepancies, coupled with the fact that the land was already vested with the State at the time, were deemed fraudulent.
The Court invoked S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1], holding that fraud vitiates all transactions.
- Possession Must Be Actual, Not Presumed
The petitioners’ claim of possession was also dismissed for want of proof. Mere reference to interim orders or development agreements could not establish lawful possession. The Court reaffirmed that actual and physical possession must be proved, especially in writ proceedings under Article 226, where no trial is held.
Statutory Vesting under Land Ceiling Laws
The Court held that the subject land had vested in the State under the Land Reforms Act and such vesting attained finality. Even if exemptions were later sought, no reversion to private ownership was legally established, nor was any statutory provision cited to allow it.
Further, the Court recorded that no exemption allowing retention of 99 acres had been proved; even under the most liberal interpretation, only 5 acres per declarant could be allowed, as per prior judicial findings.
Observations on Writ Jurisdiction
While the petition before the Telangana High Court was for protection against dispossession, the Supreme Court held that:
No valid title or possession was established.
The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the Single Judge’s findings without due consideration of the facts and statutory law.
The petitioners had no equitable or legal ground to seek relief under Article 226.
The Court restored the judgment of the Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.
Conclusion
This judgment reaffirms the settled position that registration is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive legal requirement in property transactions. The case also underscores the dangers of relying on GPA transactions, unregistered agreements, and dubious validations. It sends a strong message that title to immovable property must be clear, legal, and demonstrable through registered instruments—and that fraud, delay, and informal arrangements will not receive judicial protection.
For landowners, developers, and legal practitioners, the ruling serves as a timely reminder to scrutinize the root of title, registration compliance, and possession claims with utmost diligence before initiating or defending property claims.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal advice. This article is intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a substitute for professional legal counsel. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals before acting on any information contained herein.