Bombay HC: Registered Sale Deed Cannot Be Contradicted by an Unregistered Agreement; Trial Court Cannot Act as a Mere Post Office of the Prosecution

 I am afraid this contention cannot be heard in law. The law of this subject is very well settled. The Apex Court in the matter of S.Saktivel (Dead) By Lrs vs. M.Venugopal Pillai And Ors [MANU/SC/0499/2000 : 2000:INSC:395 : AIR 2000 SC 2633] has held that terms of registered agreement can be altered only by another registered agreement. This important fact was not considered by both the Courts. {Para 16}

17. Admittedly, there is a registered document which defines the relationship between the First Informant and the present Applicants as that of Vendor and Seller. This is a document which is in the nature of sale-deed. Since the payment has been paid and the title has been transferred therefore, there is no question of their being any contrary interpretation of those documents. The reliance on the part of the First Informant upon the un-registered separate agreement dated 07.05.2014 and the Paratfed Agreement (re-payment agreement) dated 09.10.2016 is without any substance in as much as there documents were never executed by the Applicants but it was executed only by the Accused No. 1.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (KOLHAPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application No. 921 of 2025

Prabhakar Rajaram Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sandesh D. Patil, J.

Decided On: 24.07.2026

Citation: MANU/MH/5420/2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Sale Deed Does Not Require Proof Of Attestation As Per Section 68 of Evidence Act

There is no gainsaying that Section 68 of Evidence Act opens with the words,

“if a document is required by law to be attested…”. Since the

proviso cannot be construed independently of the main

provision that it attaches to, it is as clear as a noon day that

the proviso to Section 68 cannot create an independent rule

as regards “specific denial” for all attested documents. In

other words, the proviso to Section 68 carves out an

exception only in respect of documents that are required to

be mandatorily attested by law. A sale deed does not fall in

the category of such documents, therefore, the proviso to

Section 68 would not be applicable in the present matter.{Para 46}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6526 OF 2024

R. VERONICA & ANR. Vs RUDRAYANI DEVAKI(D) THROUGH LRS. S. SATHA KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: 2026 INSC 703

Print Page

Supreme Court: Registered Sale Deed Presumed Valid; Minor Discrepancy In Attestation Witness Details Won't Invalidate Execution

 In our considered opinion, the aforesaid discrepancy was wholly inconsequential and incapable of dislodging the presumption attaching to a registered conveyance executed nearly four decades earlier. The sale deed in question was executed on 04.06.1957, whereas the testimony of the attesting witness came to be recorded after approximately 38 years on 07.09.1995. In such circumstances, minor variations in the description of residence or village particulars could hardly be treated as material contradictions striking at the root of the transaction itself, particularly when both villages are admittedly proximate to each other. {Para 55}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8705 OF 2026

SARAFAT ALI (DECEASED) Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

CONSOLIDATION HARIDWAR AND OTHERS

Author: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 652

Print Page

When limitation to file suit for cancellation of sale deed will not commence from the date of registration of sale deed?

 In fact, not having made any inquiry from the plaintiff about the capacity of title under which he continues to be in possession, the present case would be squarely covered by Explanation II to Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act. There is nothing on record to indicate that prior to the issuance of termination notice dated 24/05/1978, defendant No. 1 had informed the plaintiff about execution of the registered sale deed dated 23/06/1975. It is not even the case of the defendant No. 1 that the plaintiff had knowledge of the transaction entered into between Krishna and the plaintiff. It is for this reason that Explanation II to Section 3 assumes relevance. It states that actual possession is notice of the title of the person in possession. The plaintiff entered the property in his capacity as a tenant but subsequently by an agreement of sale agreed to purchase the suit property. As indicated earlier, the time for payment of balance consideration under the agreement was upto 1978. There is nothing on record to indicate nor is it the case of defendant No. 1 that either the original owner or defendant No. 2 cancelled the agreement of sale on which basis plaintiff claims. Even the defendant No. 2 executed sale deed in plaintiffs favour in 1978.

33. As rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 in his evidence has admitted that on 29/07/1975, the original owner Krishna made an application against defendant No. 1 to the Collector, Kolhapur alleging that consideration mentioned in sale deed was not paid to Krishna by the defendant. All these aspects would support to the plaintiff's case that the sale deed was executed between Krishna and defendant No. 1 only to defeat the rights accrued to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale dated 04/07/1973. The Appellate Court has also dealt with the matter in the context of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in as much as the plaintiff was already in possession of the properties on the date of execution of agreement of sale. Mere issuance of a public notice is not sufficient to contend that the plaintiff had knowledge of the transaction. The date of registration of sale deed in defendant No. 1's favour would not be the starting point of limitation. The contention of defendant No. 1 that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice deserves to be rejected. In the facts of the present case, defendant No. 1 should have made inquiry as to interest or title of plaintiff who was in actual possession of the suit property.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 12 of 1994

Decided On: 11.07.2019

 Baburao Naroba Bargale Vs. Surendra Baburao Shetty

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Karnik, J.

Citation: 2020(1) MHLJ 596

Print Page

Whether plaint can be rejected considering defence plea that suit is barred by limitation?

 What is relevant for answering the matter in issue in the context of the application Under Order VII Rule 11(d), is to examine the averments in the plaint. The plaint is required to be read as a whole. The defence available to the Defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application Under Order VII Rule 11(d). Only the averments in the plaint are germane. The limitation to challenge the registered sale deed ordinarily would start running from the date on which the sale deed was registered. However, the specific case of the Appellants (Plaintiffs) is that until 2013 they had no knowledge whatsoever regarding execution of such sale deed by their brothers-original Defendant Nos. 1 & 2, in favour of Jaikrishnabhai Prabhudas Thakkar or Defendant Nos. 3 to 6. They acquired that knowledge on 26.12.2012 and immediately took steps to obtain a certified copy of the registered sale deed and on receipt thereof they realised the fraud played on them by their brothers concerning the ancestral property and two days prior to the filing of the suit, had approached their brothers (original Defendant Nos. 1 & 2) calling upon them to stop interfering with their possession and to partition the property and provide exclusive possession of half (1/2) portion of the land so designated towards their share. However, when they realized that the original Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 would not pay any heed to their request, they had no other option but to approach the court of law and filed the subject suit within two days therefrom. According to the Appellants, the suit has been filed within time after acquiring the knowledge about the execution of the registered sale deed. In this context, the Trial Court opined that it was a triable issue and declined to accept the application filed by Respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 5) for rejection of the plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d). That view commends to us.
 In the present case, we find that the Appellants (Plaintiffs) have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the Appellants. We affirm the view taken by the Trial Court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power Under Order VII Rule 11(d).

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 26401 of 2017)

Decided On: 10.04.2018

 Chhotanben  Vs.  Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra, C.J.I., A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 17

Print Page

Whether it can be presumed that sale deed was validly executed if it is registered?

 Sale deed dated 21.12.1970 in favour of Jamila Begum is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law. In Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors. MANU/SC/8139/2006 : (2006) 5 SCC 353, it was held as under:

27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption.

The above judgment in Prem Singh's case has been referred to in Vishwanath Bapurao Sabale v. Shalinibai Nagappa Sabale and Ors. MANU/SC/0442/2009 : (2009) 12 SCC 101.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1007 of 2013

Decided On: 14.12.2018

 Jamila Begum (D)  Vs. Shami Mohd. (D) thr. L.Rs. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2019 SC 72,(2019) 2 SCC 727

Print Page

Whether registered sale deed is public document?

 A sale deed which is not registered would be a private document as also a sale deed which is registered. On registration the sale deed does not become a public document. The sale deed continues to be a private document.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2032 of 2008

Decided On: 15.07.2008

 Chetan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.C. Bora and F.I. Rebello, JJ.

Citation: 2008(6) MHLJ 762

Print Page

Whether registered sale deed can be discarded on ground that it does not bear signature of vendor where his name is written?

 An interesting question arises in this appeal is, as to whether a registered sale deed which does not bear signature of the vendor at the place where his name is written as the vendor, but bears his signatures in places where corrections are made in the text of the sale deed and it also bears signature on the reverse of the last page along with his thumb impression, acknowledging receipt of balance consideration, before the Registrar, can be said to be a valid sale deed or it has to be discarded only because signature of the vendor is absent at the place where his name is written as the vendor.

 In the light of the aforesaid position of law, it becomes clear that mere absence of signature of respondent No. 1 at one place in the aforesaid registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999, cannot become the basis for the respondent No. 1 to claim that such sale deed was never executed. The aforesaid question of fact regarding execution of the registered sale deed has to be ascertained on the basis of evidence on record. In the present case, the evidence on record is in the form of both attesting witnesses and the scribe appearing before the Court and deposing in favour of execution of the aforesaid registered sale deed by the respondent No. 1 in favour of the appellant. There is record of the Registrar's Office and facts have come on record showing that the respondent No. 1 is a well educated person and not an illiterate person who was taken for a ride by the appellant and misled into execution of a document which the respondent No. 1 never intended to execute. The appellate Court has erred in proceeding on the basis that the appellant ought to have proved that the signatures and thumb impression on the aforesaid registered sale deed were that of the respondent No. 1, when it was the respondent No. 1 who was denying his signatures and thumb impression on the registered document. Being the plaintiff, the burden was on respondent No. 1 to prove that the signature and thumb impression on the sale deed were not his, particularly because it was a registered document. It is also a fact that the respondent No. 1 never filed any police complaint in respect of his signatures having been allegedly forged on the registered sale deed dated 25.01.1999, which is also a relevant factor in the present case. The appellant examined both the attesting witnesses and scribe to prove that the respondent No. 1 indeed executed the registered sale deed on 25.01.1999 in the Registrar's Office. The appellate Court has held that emphasis placed by the trial Court on admission of respondent No. 1 about oral agreement to sale, was misplaced. But, this conclusion of the Appellate Court is also erroneous because the admission of oral agreement on the part of the respondent No. 1 did indicate that the parties were in the process of executing the aforesaid registered sale deed pertaining to the suit property. Even if the appellate Court found that the agreement dated 23.01.1998 was a suspicious document, admission of respondent No. 1 that there was an oral agreement did assume significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 55 of 2016

Decided On: 10.04.2018

 Ramesh Vs.  Ratnakar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018( 5) MHLJ 132

Print Page

Whether sale deed not signed by purchaser is valid?

This is obviously because the said document is executed by the vendor in their favour. In this context, the question that arises for consideration is, as to whether it is mandatory that purchasers need to sign on sale deeds that are executed in their favour by the vendor. In the context of agreement of sale, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Aloka Bose (supra) has held as follows:-

"16. On the other hand, the observation in S.M. Gopal Chetty, MANU/TN/0069/1997 : AIR 1998 Madras 169 that unless agreement is signed both by the vendor and purchaser, it is not a valid contract is also not sound. An agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase, for an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can be oral. It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed. It may be by a single document signed by both parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser. Or it can be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it."

In the context of execution of sale deed, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Fazal Ullah Khan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra) has held as follows:-

"11. A party to a transfer can certainly cancel it in case necessary ingredients as provided for under law, are established. Such transaction can be sale or for that matter any conveyance including gift, mortgage, exchange and the like. Though transactions such as sale and gift are brought into existence with unilateral acts of execution of the documents, the legal effect thereof is that the title in respect of the property stands transferred in favour of the transferred name therein, notwithstanding the fact that the transferee may not have subscribed his signature in the documents. From this point of view, the sale deed on the one hand and the gift deed on the other, stand on the same footing."

14. It appears that in transactions like the sale deed at Exh. 31 in the present case, in the context of sale and purchase of immovable property, it is the signature of the vendor being a person who executes the document that is crucial and absence of signature of purchasers does not render the document defective in any manner.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 324 of 2002

Decided On: 23.03.2018

Hemant  Vs. Naresh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 246

Print Page

Whether title to immovable property can be transferred on basis of power of attorney or will?

Three Judge Bench of this Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.(2) vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656, considered the validity of such SA/GPA/WILL transaction and observed thus:

"23. Therefore, an SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor creates any interest in an immovable property. The observations by the Delhi High Court in Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank, (2001) 94 DLT 841, that the "concept of power-of-attorney sales has been recognised as a mode of transaction" when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognised or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed. Such decisions to the extent they recognise or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law.

24. We therefore reiterate that immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transactions of the nature of "GPA sales" or "SA/GPA/WILL transfers" do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognised or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognised as deeds of title, except to the limited extent ofSection 53-A of the TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. What is stated above will apply not only to deeds of conveyance in regard to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold property. A lease can be validly transferred only under a registered assignment of lease. It is time that an end is put to the pernicious practice of SA/GPA/WILL transactions known as GPA sales."
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

D.D.A vs Gaurav Kukreja on 24 March, 2015

Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi

Print Page

When it is not necessary to obtain No Objection Certificate from sub divisional officer for recording mutation entry?

 On  hearing  the  learned  Counsel  for   the   parties  and   on   a
perusal   of   the   provisions   of   Section   37­A   of   the   Maharashtra   Land
Revenue   Code,   it   appears   that   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Land
Records   was   not   justified   in   refusing   to   mutate   the   name   of   the
petitioners in the revenue records for not producing the No Objection
Certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Achalpur.  It is clear from the
orders passed by this Court from time to time that the respondents had no
authority in law to seek the No Objection Certificate.  The provisions of
Section 37­A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are brought into
effect from 03.03.2015 and since the provisions of Section 37­A(1) are
not   retrospective   in   operation,   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Land
Records could not have sought the No Objection Certificate when the
petitioners had purchased the property by a registered sale deed dated
13.02.2013.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3060/2016
Sau. Vanita W/o Diwakar Shukla

V
 State of Maharashtra,

CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A.NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.  
    DATE       : 13TH JULY,          2016.
Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 809

Print Page

When plaintiff is entitled to get possession of suit property which he had purchased by registered sale deed?

When the evidence let in by the plaintiff with regard to
the execution of document and its admission by the defendant before
the registering authority followed by registration are found acceptable
being further backed by the statutory presumption as above and here
the defendant being neither illiterate nor old or infirm, the evidence
tendered from the side of the defendant in denial of the same being
not acceptable, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the finding
of the trial court on that score.
In so far as factum of possession of the suit land is
concerned, the evidence of plaintiff, examined as P.W.1 and her
witness P.W.4 being gone through are not found in any way as
deficient for being discarded. Their evidence have not been shaken. 
On the other hand, the counter evidence let in by the defendant
through D.W.2, a mason do not stand to scrutiny, more so while
stating that the contractor was looking after the construction of the
house, he goes to produce some receipts showing payment for
different item of works which perse appears to be unbelievable. The
trial court upon vivid analysis has found the receipts to have been
manipulated for the said purpose. The plaintiff through evidence has
further proved the illegal act of trespass upon the suit land by the
defendant.
For the aforesaid discussion and reason, I hold that the
plaintiff has established her right, title and interest over the suit land
to have been so acquired by purchasing the same from the defendant
and as such her right to possess. Thus, her entitlement to the relief
claimed in the suit for recovery of the suit land from the defendant
firmly stands. Accordingly, I find no reason to disturb the decision of
the trial court on all the issues and the judgment and decree as
passed by the trial court are hereby confirmed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
R.F.A. NO. 45 of 2006

Balakrushna Panda V Smt.Bilasini Das 
PRESENT:
SHRI JUSTICE D.DASH
Citation: AIR 2017(NOC) 190 Orissa
Date of judgment- 18.10.2016

Print Page

Whether the court can permit defendant to plead contrary to registered Sale deed ?

Order 7 Rule 11, Order 12 Rule 6 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 91, 92 - Possession - Sale deed - Title - Rejection of counter-claim - Decree on admission - By way of a registered sale deed defendant transferred the suit property to the plaintiffs - Total consideration of Rs. 1,65,00,000 was paid - Sale deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar - Right of possession of plaintiffs was recognized in the sale deed - Despite the receipt of the entire consideration and execution of the sale deed, the defendant has failed to handover the physical vacant possession of the suit property - Defendant claimed that the amounts received by him were towards loan, and not towards sale consideration - Defendant has not produced any document to show that amounts were received by way of loan - Defense set up by the defendant is barred under section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act - Since the title of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property stands established, suit of the plaintiff for possession has to succeed - Defendant has failed to establish any right or title in the suit Property - Defendant may have occupied the suit property as a licensee - License stands terminated - Cause of action pleaded by the defendant in the counter claim is the so-called oral agreement that the plaintiffs shall re-transfer - No cause of action has arisen to seek the cancellation of the sale deed - Counter claim of the defendant is rejected - Possession was never delivered to the plaintiff would not deprive the plaintiff to claim ownership on the basis of their title derived from the sale deed, and to claim possession of the suit property - Applications of the plaintiffs are allowed - Suit is decreed in respect of the relief of possession.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

CS (OS) 1633/2012, CC 18/2013 and I.A. Nos. 10623 and 16134/2012

Decided On: 26.03.2014

 Karan Madaan and Others

Vs.

 Nageshwar Pandey

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Vipin Sanghi, J.

Print Page