Can Ownership Be Transferred Without a Registered Sale Agreement?

In property law, the legitimacy of ownership transfer is largely governed by the Registration Act, 1908 and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. One of the most debated questions in Indian real estate law is whether ownership in immovable property can be transferred without a registered sale agreement. The Supreme Court, in its recent decision in Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2025 INSC 646, has brought clarity to this issue by re-emphasising that registration is the sine qua non for the lawful transfer of immovable property.

This article analyses the key legal principles on the subject. It evaluates the Supreme Court's decision in the case mentioned above, which has far-reaching implications for parties relying on unregistered agreements to assert title or possession.

Legal Framework: What the Law Says

1. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA)

Under Section 54 of the TPA, a sale of immovable property valued at ₹100 or more must be made by a registered instrument. A sale agreement, even if executed and signed, does not transfer ownership unless it culminates in a registered sale deed.

2. Registration Act, 1908

• Section 17 mandates the compulsory registration of instruments that purport to transfer title in immovable property.
• Section 49 bars the admissibility of unregistered documents in evidence to prove transfer of title.

Thus, without a registered sale deed, legal ownership is not transferred, even if the agreement was executed and possession handed over.

The Judicial Landscape Before 2025

Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656

This judgment categorically held that General Power of Attorney (GPA) sales, or transactions based on Sale Agreements and Wills (SA/GPA/Will), do not transfer ownership. It emphasised that only registered conveyance deeds can create or transfer ownership rights.

The Court in Suraj Lamp further clarified:

SA/GPA/Will transactions are not legally valid methods of transfer and do not convey title.

Factual Matrix in Mahnoor Fatima Imran Case (2025)

In Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Ors. v. M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the appellants claimed possession and ownership over 53 acres of land in Survey No. 83/2, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, based on sale deeds issued by M/s Bhavana Co-operative Housing Society. The society’s title, in turn, traced back to an unregistered agreement of sale dated 19.03.1982, which was “revalidated” in 2006 but never registered.

Several critical facts emerged:

The land had vested in the State under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.

• Possession was claimed to be handed over to the General Power of Attorney (GPA) of the original owners only in 1990.
• A suit for specific performance based on the 1982 agreement had been dismissed in 2001.
• The revalidated agreement differed materially from the original agreement in terms of consideration, boundaries, and extent.

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

The Court ruled that:

1. No Ownership Without Registered Deed

The primary and most forceful conclusion drawn by the Court was that:

The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent instrument had been registered.

This upheld the principle from Suraj Lamp, emphasising that only a registered deed of conveyance can confer ownership. Even a registered document based on an unregistered and disputed agreement will not validate ownership.

2. Revalidated Agreement = Fraudulent Attempt

The Court highlighted several discrepancies between the original agreement (Annexure P-33) and the revalidated one (Annexure P-37), including differing extents, payment terms, and cheque numbers, casting serious doubt on its authenticity. The revalidation attempt, 24 years later and without registration, was deemed a suspicious act, bordering on fraud.

3. Suit for Specific Performance Dismissed

Bhavana Society had filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed for default and never restored. This, according to the Court, implied that the vendor had no enforceable right or title.

4. Title of Vendor Not Established

The Court held that even assuming the sale deeds were registered, they could not confer a valid title if the vendor itself had no ownership. The “fraud exception” to title by registration was invoked.

A registered document does not cure a defect in the vendor's title.

Possession ≠ Ownership

A significant part of the case hinged on the claim that the appellants were in possession. The Court, however, clarified:

Actual and physical possession must be proved, which principle would apply even in a writ petition under Article 226.

Citing Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta (2020) 19 SCC 119, the Court held that mere possession, especially disputed and undocumented, is insufficient to assert ownership rights in court.

The Impact of Section 9-A, Land Reforms Act

The State of Telangana, through its counsel, invoked Section 9-A of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms Act, enabling the reopening of land vesting cases. The Court gave weight to this argument, stating that the land was “vested in the State” and hence, Bhavana Society could not have received a valid title in 1982 when the State already had possession since 1975.

Implications of the Judgment

1. Legal Certainty Over Title

This judgment reinforces the principle that legal ownership of immovable property is not a matter of private arrangements—it must be recorded through registered instruments.

2. Due Diligence Imperative

Buyers and developers can no longer rely on unregistered agreements or questionable revalidations. Proper due diligence and registration are essential to avoid future disputes.

3. Revalidation Without Registration is Futile

Attempting to “revalidate” an unregistered agreement of sale decades later is not recognised under the law.

4. Possession Alone Insufficient

Mere claims of long-standing possession or reliance on interim orders in earlier writ petitions are inadequate to claim ownership or prevent dispossession by the State.

Highlights of the Judgment

The key observations outlined below were made by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran in the course of their judgment.

The agreement of 1982, the original one and the revalidated one, cannot result in a valid title, merely for reason that the subsequent instrument had been registered.

The power of absolute right over lands is on the State and the person in occupation, is only there, by virtue of the grants, which can be brought to an end by the State which has the power of eminent domain.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Mahnoor Fatima Imran v. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has decisively settled that ownership cannot be transferred without a registered sale deed. Unregistered agreements of sale—even if acted upon—do not confer title, and any claim based on such documents is inherently weak.

The judgment strengthens the principles laid down in Suraj Lamp and affirms the legal position that immovable property transactions must follow due process. In an era where land fraud and title manipulation are rampant, this decision serves as a strong reminder to all stakeholders—buyers, sellers, developers, and regulators—that only registered and lawful documents can secure real property rights.