Chhattisgarh HC rules unregistered sale deed gives no title, rejects adverse possession claim in land dispute case

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 284 | 2026:CGHC:19765

April 29, 2026 : In a significant ruling on property law, the Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a second appeal in a decades-old land dispute, holding that an unregistered sale deed cannot confer title and that a plea of adverse possession cannot be sustained when possession originates from a purported contractual transaction.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey on April 29, 2026, overturned concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, ultimately dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

The dispute arose from competing claims over agricultural land in Surguja district. The plaintiffs had relied on an unregistered sale deed dated April 15, 1964, claiming that the property had been sold to them for ₹150 and a sewing machine, and that possession had been handed over at the time. They also asserted that their long-standing occupation of the land had matured into ownership through adverse possession.

However, the defendants challenged both claims, arguing that the alleged sale deed was legally inadmissible and that the plaintiffs’ possession, even if established, was merely permissive in nature.

The High Court framed two key legal questions: whether an unregistered sale deed could confer title, and whether the plaintiffs had successfully established adverse possession.

Addressing the first issue, the Court reiterated that under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, any transfer of immovable property valued above ₹100 must be effected through a registered instrument. It emphasized that an unregistered document cannot create or transfer ownership rights and is generally inadmissible as evidence of title. The Court clarified that while such documents may be used for limited collateral purposes under Section 49, they cannot be relied upon to prove a completed sale transaction.

On the plea of adverse possession, the Court found the plaintiffs’ case internally inconsistent. It observed that a person claiming ownership based on a sale transaction cannot simultaneously assert hostile possession against the same title. Since the plaintiffs’ possession was rooted in a purported agreement of sale, it could at best be considered permissive, not adverse.

The Court further noted that the plaintiffs had failed to establish essential elements of adverse possession, including the exact date from which possession became hostile, whether such possession was known to the true owner, and whether it was continuous, open, and uninterrupted for the statutory period of 12 years.

Importantly, the Court also highlighted that a registered sale deed executed in 2000 in favour of the defendants carried a presumption of validity. The plaintiffs had alleged that this deed was forged but failed to challenge it through proper legal proceedings or substantiate their claim with evidence.

In light of these findings, the High Court held that the plaintiffs had neither established valid title nor perfected ownership through adverse possession. It concluded that the lower courts had erred in law and set aside their judgments.

Allowing the appeal, the Court dismissed the suit in its entirety, reinforcing the principle that property rights must be grounded in legally valid instruments and clearly established possession.

Case Reference : SA No. 647 of 2003, Ramjanak and Another vs. Mohd. Kasim and Others; Counsels: For Appellants: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate, along with Mr. Aman Upadhyay, Advocate; For Respondents No. 1 & 2: Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Advocate; For State/Respondent No. 8: Mr. Topilal Bareth, Panel Lawyer.