From Possession to Paper: SC reaffirms adverse-possession title as a “pre‑existing right” (Mukesh v. State of M.P., 2024 INSC 1026) -A View point

 The Supreme Court in Mukesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (decided 20 Dec 2024) held that where a compromise/consent decree merely recognises a litigant’s pre-existing right in the suit property (including a right that may have matured from continuous adverse possession), such a decree does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and—on the facts—cannot be treated as a “conveyance” attracting stamp duty for mutation.

This is significant for adverse possession because the Court expressly relies on Ravinder Kaur Grewal to reiterate that continuous, uninterrupted adverse possession can confer right, title and interest and can be used as a sword—supporting the “pre-existing right” analysis.

Facts in brief (so the ratio is clear)

The appellant claimed long and continuous possession/cultivation over the suit land and filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction when the recorded holder allegedly attempted to interfere/sell.​

The suit ended in a Lok Adalat compromise decree (30 Nov 2013) acknowledging the appellant’s possession and permitting his name to be recorded in revenue records, after which the Tehsildar referred the mutation to the stamp authorities and stamp duty was demanded as if the decree were a conveyance.

Ratio on adverse possession (what the case “lays down”)

1. Adverse possession can constitute a pre-existing right once it has matured. The Court notes (via Ravinder Kaur Grewal) that continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession confers right, title and interest and can be used as a sword, and then applies that understanding to treat the appellant’s claim as assertion of a pre-existing right rather than acquisition of a new right through compromise.

2. Registration turns on whether the decree creates a new right or declares an old one. The Court reiterates the settled framework flowing from Bhoop Singh and later cases: a compromise decree is not compulsorily registrable when it (i) is bona fide/not collusive, (ii) relates to the property that is the subject-matter of the suit, and (iii) merely declares/recognises a pre-existing right rather than creating rights for the first time.

3. No automatic suspicion of collusion without proof. Although the State alleged the suit/compromise was collusive to evade stamp duty, the Court records absence of concrete evidence and absence of any prior judicial finding of collusion, and it also notes the compromise decree had attained finality.​

The operational rule: consent decree ≠ conveyance (for stamp duty) on these facts

The Court separates registration from stamp duty and holds that court decrees are not chargeable with stamp duty unless they fall within chargeable instruments under the Stamp Act schedules; on the facts, the compromise decree merely asserted pre-existing rights and therefore would not operate as a conveyance transferring rights so as to attract stamp duty for mutation.

Accordingly, it set aside the High Court/Revenue authorities’ orders and directed mutation in favour of the appellant.

Practice notes for lawyers and revenue disputes

• Plead and prove the “pre-existing right” clearly: long, settled, continuous possession (and where applicable, matured adverse possession) should be framed as the foundation; the compromise should be drafted as recognition rather than transfer.

• Keep the compromise confined to the suit property; if it includes property outside the subject-matter, the Section 17(2)(vi) protection may not apply.

• Expect scrutiny where the decree appears engineered to avoid duties, but the State must still back collusion allegations with material; mere suspicion is not enough.​

Print Page