Reliability on Registered Sale Deeds: Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case

Registration alone does not prove ownership of PROPERTY!

It is often assumed that registration of the document transferring property alone is sufficient to establish and prove ownership over the property. However, today, ownership of property must be established with comprehensive documentation to ensure legal protection to a larger extent. Registration of the document transferring property serves a three-fold purpose:(i) it provides proof of ownership, (ii) safeguards the rights and interests of the owner, and (iii) protects against false claims. Courts have emphasized that registration carries a presumption of genuineness, but it does not, by itself, create or cure ownership where the vendor lacked a valid title. This blog examines the reliability of registered sale deeds in conferring ownership of property, in light of the Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case.

Legal framework governing registration of property

Registration of the document transferring property is one of the essential requirements to assert ownership over such property. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 ("Act") provides that every document (other than testamentary instruments), which has the effect to create, assign, declare, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of INR 100/- or more must be registered in accordance with the Act. It includes sale deeds, gift deeds, lease deeds, mortgage deeds and other documents falling within the ambit of section 17 of the Act. Further, such documents must be presented for registration before the Registrar of the relevant district within four months from the date of execution. ^[1]On the other hand, documents presented for registration after the expiry of the said statutory time period may also be registered, if the delay is neither intentional nor attributable to the applicant.^[2] The competent court generally adjudicates the same on the facts and circumstances of each case. Furthermore, Section 49 of the Act outlines that, as a consequence of non-registration under the Act, such documents neither affect nor can they be received as evidence of any transaction affecting immovable property.

The Supreme Court of India has highlighted the importance of registration in various cases. For instance, in Suraj Lamps Industries v. State of Haryana ^[3]("Suraj Lamps case"), the Supreme Court addressed the validity of transferring immovable property through instruments, including agreements of sale, powers of attorney, and wills. It emphasized that such instruments neither transfer nor create any right, title or interest in immovable property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It stated that immovable property can be legally and lawfully conveyed and transferred only through a registered conveyance deed. In the absence of a registered conveyance deed, no right, title or interest in an immovable property can be transferred.

In another landmark case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Star Bone Mill and Fertiliser Co. ^[4] ("Star Bone Mill case"), the Supreme Court ruled that a lessee without ownership of the property cannot transfer title despite executing a registered sale deed. It reaffirmed the principle that no one could transfer a better title than what they possess in respect of a property.

Mahnoor Fatima Imran case: Reliability on registered sale deeds

Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. Visweswara Infrastructure Private Limited ^[5]("Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case") is a landmark case that addressed issues surrounding the registration and lawful ownership of property. The dispute concerned a land parcel situated in Raidurg Panmaktha village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana ("Property"). The appellant sought to restrain the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation from demolishing the structures and fencing surrounding their property. The appellant purchased the Property from Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society Limited (“Vendor”) through a registered sale deed. However, the Vendor herein acquired Property through an agreement of sale in 1982, which was not registered under the Act. It has been contended that the agreement of sale was validated by the Assistant Registrar, Ranga Reddy district in 2006, which could not cure the defect of non-registration of the same. Moreover, the agreement of sale was never formalized through any conveyance deed. Applying the decision in Suraj Lamps case, the Supreme Court opined that such an unregistered agreement of sale cannot be recognized as a valid instrument for transferring property in favour of the Vendor.

Further, the appellant proved possession of the Property through interim orders granted in the earlier writ proceedings but failed to establish actual and lawful possession. In view of the issues surrounding registration, title, and possession of the property, the Supreme Court did not grant relief to the appellant, as prayed against theTelangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, due to the lack of title. The Supreme Court upheld that a registered sale deed in favour of the appellant does not, in itself, confer ownership if the Vendor lacked a valid title to the Property.

Upon analyzing the above-mentioned cases, it becomes clear that the Suraj Lamps and Star Bone Mill cases highlight the requirement that immovable property cannot be conveyed or transferred without registration in accordance with the Act. Further, the Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case asserted that while registration imparts notice of execution, it does not confer a clear and valid title upon the subsequent purchaser if the vendor did not possess a valid title. At the same time, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 offers a narrow safeguard, where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents that he is empowered to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer it for consideration, then such transfer, at the option of the transferee, operates on any interest which the transferor may subsequently acquire during the subsistence of the contract. This doctrine of' feeding the estoppel’ ensures that bona fide purchasers are not left whollyremediless when the vendor later perfects his title.

Conclusion:

The Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case makes it clear that registration, though indispensable, does not by itself confer ownership over the concerned property. A registered sale deed cannot cure the absence of a valid title of the vendor to the property, and the true safeguard for purchasers lies in careful verification of the chain of ownership, with Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 offering only a narrow remedy.

References

[1] Section 23 of the Registration Act,1908.

[2] Nestor Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2015) 4 AIR Bom R675.

[3] (2012) 1 SCC 656.

[4] [2013] 4 SCR 394.

[5] 2025 INSC 646.

‍