Unregistered Sale Deed Cannot Be Both Sword and Shield:  Madras High Court Declares Part-Performance Defence Inapplicable in Absence of Valid Contract

“A document written as a sale deed cannot later be dressed up as an agreement to claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act” – In a significant ruling on the evidentiary value of unregistered sale deeds and the limits of the doctrine of part-performance, the Madras High Court allowed a Second Appeal , restoring the trial court’s decree for recovery of possession of the suit property. In S.A. No. 762 of 2010, the Court categorically held that the unregistered sale deed (Ex.B1) relied on by the defendants could neither confer title nor protect possession under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as it failed to meet the basic requirements of a lawful and valid contract.

Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula, speaking for the Court, observed:

“Ex.B1 document can neither be considered as a valid sale deed for want of registration nor considered as a valid contract for want of proof of free will... it cannot be used as a sword and a shield simultaneously.”

“Unregistered Document with Sale Recitals Cannot Be Deemed an Agreement” – Court Refuses Protection of Possession under Section 53-A TPA

The dispute arose from a claim by the defendants that the second plaintiff had executed a sale deed dated 03.05.1983 (Ex.B1) in their favour for a sum of Rs.1100, and that they were consequently put in possession. However, Ex.B1 was unregistered and was presented as the foundational document for both title and possession.

The First Appellate Court, reversing the Trial Court’s decree, had erroneously accepted the defendants' plea of part performance under Section 53-A, thereby protecting their possession.

Rejecting that view, the High Court held:

“Ex.B1 is not a sale agreement; it was treated as a completed sale by the defendants themselves. Once considered a sale deed, its unregistered nature renders it inadmissible to prove title or transfer of possession.”

Justice Manjula emphasized the mandatory registration requirement under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, reiterating that no rights can be claimed on the basis of such an unregistered document, even for transactions predating the 2001 amendment.

“Fraud, Intoxication, and Dubious Thumb Impressions – No Consent, No Contract”

The plaintiffs asserted that the second plaintiff’s thumb impression was obtained in an intoxicated state, induced by the first defendant. The Trial Court had earlier noted that the impugned document was written in two different inks, with interlineations, and that the thumb impression was affixed above the property description, raising serious doubts about interpolation and authenticity.

The High Court took note of these findings and stated:

“Even if it is presumed that the thumb impression was affixed consciously, Ex.B1 cannot convey any title in favour of the first defendant as it is an unregistered document.”

The Court further invoked the principles of free consent under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, holding that in the absence of proof of voluntary execution, Section 53-A cannot come to the defendant’s rescue.

“Possession Can’t Be Protected When Contract Is Invalid or Fraudulent”

Section 53-A, even before its amendment in 2001, required that the contract of sale be genuine, lawful, and complete in its essential terms. The Court reiterated that the burden of proving a valid contract falls upon the person seeking its protection — in this case, the defendants.

Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Guman Singh v. Manga Singh (MANU/SC/0872/2016) and Ranchhoddas Chhaganlal v. Devaji Supdu Dorik [(1977) 3 SCC 584], the Court reiterated:

“Section 53-A can be used only as a shield and not as a sword… No rights indicated in an unregistered sale deed can be pressed or claimed.”

Thus, the Court dismissed the claim of lawful possession, stating that possession claimed under an unproven and unregistered document is no possession in the eyes of law.

“Title in Wife, Not Husband – Plaintiffs’ Joint Possession and House Tax Receipts Establish Ownership”

The Court also found that the plaintiffs' ownership and possession were well-established, supported by house tax receipts (Ex.A3 & A4) in their joint names. The first defendant had failed to prove that the second plaintiff was the exclusive owner, and more importantly, could not explain why no prior title document was handed over along with Ex.B1.

“In the absence of proof that the second plaintiff is the sole owner, and given the joint possession of both plaintiffs, it must be presumed that the first plaintiff had a rightful share in ownership and possession.”

“Self-Contradictory Plea Bars Part Performance – Document Treated as Sale Deed Cannot Morph into Agreement”

One of the most significant observations in the judgment was the inconsistency in the defence’s stand. The defendants oscillated between calling Ex.B1 a complete sale deed and then seeking protection under part performance, which is available only where the contract remains uncompleted.

Justice Manjula clarified:

“The first defendant tried to use Ex.B1 as both sword and shield… Such a self-contradictory plea is impermissible… Ex.B1 cannot be considered either to confirm title or to protect possession.”

First Appellate Court Erred in Law – Trial Court’s Decree Restored

Setting aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, the High Court restored the Trial Court’s decree in favour of the plaintiffs and directed the first defendant to hand over possession of the suit property within one month.

“As Ex.B1 cannot be used to claim title or possession, and as plaintiffs’ ownership and dispossession are established, they are entitled to recovery.”

Date of Decision: 6th November 2025