Registered Sale Deeds Presumed Valid; Specific Performance Of Oral Re-conveyance Agreement Requires Cogent Evidence: Kerala High Court

"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", Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a registered sale deed carries a legal presumption of correctness and validity that cannot be easily rebutted by mere allegations of an oral agreement.

A bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that a party seeking specific performance of an oral agreement for the re-conveyance of property must provide cogent and reliable evidence to overcome the weight of a registered instrument. The Court noted that once a document is registered in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, it is presumed to be genuine unless the contrary is proved by the person challenging it.

The appellant, Sukesini, filed a suit for specific performance alleging that she had executed a sale deed in 1997 in favour of the first defendant as security for a loan of Rs. 75,000 borrowed for her daughter's marriage. She further claimed that a second sale deed was executed in 2006 in favour of the third defendant to settle the initial loan, based on an oral agreement that the property would be re-conveyed upon repayment. When the third defendant refused to re-convey the property and demanded a higher sum, she approached the Court, which saw her suit dismissed by the Principal Sub Judge, Kollam.

The primary question before the Court was whether the registered sale deeds (Exts. A1 and A2) were executed merely as security for loan transactions rather than absolute sales. The Court was also called upon to determine whether an oral agreement for re-conveyance existed between the parties and if such an agreement could be enforced through a decree of specific performance.

Presumption Of Validity Of Registered Documents

The Court placed heavy reliance on the legal sanctity of registered documents, noting that the execution of the sale deeds was admitted by the plaintiff. Justice Purushothaman emphasized that under the law, a registered document is prima facie valid and the burden to prove otherwise lies squarely on the shoulders of the person alleging it to be a sham or a security document.

"Once a document is registered, there is a presumption of correctness attached to it. It is to be presumed that the document has been duly executed and registered in accordance with law."

The Court cited the Supreme Court decision in Prem Singh and Others v. Birbal and Others [(2006) 5 SCC 353], which established that the onus of proof is on the person leading evidence to rebut the presumption of a validly executed registered document. This principle was further reinforced by referencing the more recent apex court ruling in Santhosh Devi v. Sunder [2025 KHC 6446].

Burden Of Rebutting The Presumption

The Court observed that the plaintiff failed to produce any cogent evidence to suggest that the transactions were anything other than what they purported to be—absolute sales. While the plaintiff argued that the consideration was below market value and that she remained in possession, the Court found these arguments insufficient to override the recitals of the registered deeds.

Court Finds No Evidence To Treat Sale As Loan Security

The Court noted that both contested documents were styled as sale deeds and contained all necessary recitals under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The bench remarked that the plaintiff had not challenged the validity of the sale deeds themselves but had instead sought re-conveyance, which inherently acknowledged the initial transfer of title.

"As rightly observed by the learned Sub Judge, other than mere suggestion regarding the case of the plaintiff put to the defendants in their cross-examinations, nothing was elicited so as to suggest that Exts.A1 and A2 were executed as documents of security."

Strict Proof Required For Oral Agreements In Specific Performance

Addressing the plea of an oral agreement for re-conveyance, the Court referred to the precedent in Bhasy v. Thomman and others [2022 (4) KHC 362]. It was held that while the law does not prohibit oral sale agreements, they must fulfill the requirements of Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act and be proven with a high degree of certainty.

"A decree for specific performance cannot be granted on the basis of an oral agreement unless there is cogent and reliable evidence to prove the agreement."

The Court observed that nothing prevented the plaintiff from incorporating the terms of the alleged re-conveyance agreement into the registered sale deeds themselves. The absence of such terms, combined with the lack of independent evidence, led the Court to conclude that the alleged oral agreement did not exist.

Rejection of Claims Regarding Possession and Title Deeds

The plaintiff’s contention that the original title deeds were not handed over was also rejected. The Court found that the third defendant was in possession of the original prior title deeds, which supported the conclusion that a genuine sale had occurred. The Court also found no merit in the argument that the defendants failed to measure the property, stating that a mere absence of title over a small portion of the land does not prove the transaction was a security.

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit as the plaintiff failed to establish the existence of the oral agreement or rebut the presumption of the registered sale deeds. Finding no grounds for interference, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the parties to bear their own costs.

Date of Decision: 28 April 2026