Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms Validity of Registered Sale Deed, Rejects Adverse Possession Claim in Land Dispute

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 294 | 2026:CGHC:20351

May 1, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a second appeal in a long-running land dispute, affirming that a registered sale deed executed in 1973 constituted a valid transfer of ownership and could not be undermined by claims of adverse possession or oral evidence contradicting the document.Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

The case arose from a dispute over a two-acre parcel of land in Kabirdham district. The original plaintiff, Ghanshyam, had purchased the land through a registered sale deed dated May 1, 1973, and his name was subsequently recorded in revenue records. After his death, his legal heirs continued the litigation, seeking recovery of possession, declaration of title, and an injunction against interference.

The defendant, however, contested the claim, arguing that the transaction was not a sale but a mortgage. He also asserted that he had been in continuous possession of the land for over two decades and had therefore acquired ownership through adverse possession.

Initially, the trial court sided with the defendant. It held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the validity of the sale deed and accepted the argument that the transaction was in the nature of a mortgage. It further concluded that the defendant had perfected his title through adverse possession.

This finding was overturned by the first appellate court, which held that the registered sale deed clearly evidenced a transfer of ownership. It noted that the executant of the document had admitted its execution, and that oral claims contradicting the contents of a registered instrument could not override its legal effect. The appellate court also rejected the adverse possession claim, finding no credible evidence of hostile possession.

Hearing the second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru confined the analysis to whether any substantial question of law arose. The Court found no such error in the appellate court’s reasoning.

The judgment emphasized that a registered sale deed carries strong evidentiary value, particularly when it is more than 30 years old and produced from proper custody. It reiterated that under the Evidence Act, the contents of such a document cannot be contradicted by oral evidence unless there is clear proof to the contrary.

The Court also clarified that for a transaction to qualify as a mortgage by conditional sale under the Transfer of Property Act, the relevant condition must be expressly stated in the document itself. In this case, no such condition existed, reinforcing the conclusion that the transaction was an outright sale.

On the issue of adverse possession, the Court held that the defendant failed to establish continuous, hostile, and uninterrupted possession for the statutory period. It noted that the defendant’s initial possession appeared to be permissive, as he had been cultivating the land as a sharecropper, which cannot later evolve into adverse possession without a clear and hostile assertion of ownership.

The Court further observed that proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which had earlier recognized the defendant’s possession, were limited to maintaining law and order and did not determine title.

Finding no perversity or legal error in the appellate court’s judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs.

Case Reference : SA No. 510 of 2005 – Ramesh v. Smt. Radhabai (deceased) through legal heirs & Ors.; Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate; for Respondents No. 1–4: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate; for Respondent No. 5: Mr. Anand Gupta, Deputy Government Advocate.