Unregistered Sale Deed Is No Title—Possession Cannot Be Adverse When Founded on Permission or Contract: Telangana High Court Restores Possession to Legal Heirs

Inconsistent Plea of Title and Adverse Possession Cannot Stand— Telangana High Court delivered a scathing reversal of a lower appellate court judgment, holding that the respondents had no valid title or claim to the land based on an unregistered sale deed, and that their plea of adverse possession was legally and factually unsustainable.

Justice Dr. G. Radha Rani allowed the Second Appeal and restored the decree passed by the trial court in O.S. No. 355 of 2000, confirming the plaintiffs' entitlement to declaration, recovery of possession, and correction of revenue records for agricultural land measuring Ac.1-14½ guntas in Survey No.408/EE (408/4), Rajampet Village, Medak.

The Court decisively held: “An unregistered sale deed cannot be relied upon to claim title. Possession under such a document cannot ripen into adverse possession. One cannot ride two horses at the same time.”

“Permission Is Not Ownership—Cultivation on Batai Basis Cannot Become Adverse Possession”
The plaintiffs’ father, Vadde Venkaiah, had originally purchased the land jointly with others in 1966, and during his illness, permitted the defendants’ father to cultivate the land on crop-sharing basis. After Venkaiah’s death, the defendants denied giving the plaintiffs their rightful share and claimed ownership through an unregistered sale deed dated 12.07.1975 (Ex.B1).

However, the Court found this document to be legally inadmissible, factually unproven, and fraudulently relied upon: “No attesting witness or scribe was examined. DW.2 was not even present at registration. DW.1 was only 15 years old at the time of the alleged transaction. Their testimonies contradict each other—this throws serious suspicion on Ex.B1.”

Further, the defendants’ shifting narrative was rejected: “Initially they pleaded purchase under Ex.B1, and alternatively claimed adverse possession. Such inconsistent pleas are mutually destructive.”

“Lower Appellate Court's Reliance on a Fabricated Affidavit Not Filed in Trial Court Is Perversity”
The High Court pulled up the lower appellate court for relying on an alleged third-party affidavit supposedly filed by the plaintiffs’ father in a prior suit (O.S. No. 95 of 1994) acknowledging the sale—though that document was never marked or proved before the trial court.

Justice Radha Rani found this practice judicially untenable: “The so-called affidavit bore only a thumb impression and was neither marked nor proved. There was no opportunity for cross-examination. Its acceptance without justification is not only irregular but perverse.”

The Court reminded that: “A document not admitted into evidence in trial cannot be relied upon in appeal without lawful justification under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.”

“Adverse Possession Requires Hostility, Continuity, and Clarity—None Were Proved”
The Court found that revenue records showed the defendants’ name only from 1999–2000, and that there was no documentary or testimonial proof of open, hostile, or continuous possession adverse to the plaintiffs' title.

Citing M. Durai v. Muthu, Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, and the Constitution Bench in M. Siddiq (Ram Janmabhumi case), the Court reiterated: “Adverse possession must be hostile, open, and continuous. Mere long possession does not suffice. It must be to the knowledge of the true owner and in denial of their title.”

The judgment added: “Once a party bases possession on a sale deed—even if unregistered—they cannot turn around and claim adverse possession. Possession traceable to permission or contract cannot be adverse.”

“Mutation in Revenue Records Does Not Confer Ownership—Only Civil Title Can Determine Possession”
The Court underscored that entries in revenue records, such as Ex.B5 (pahani for 1999-2000) and Exs.B7–B9 (title deeds and pattadar passbooks), are only administrative in nature and do not establish or extinguish ownership: “Mutation entries are meant for revenue collection. They have no evidentiary value on title. Reliance on such entries by the appellate court was misplaced.”

Judgment of Lower Appellate Court Set Aside, Plaintiffs Declared Owners and Restored to Possession
Allowing the appeal, the High Court categorically found that the plaintiffs had established lawful ownership, and the defendants failed to prove sale, possession, or adverse claim.

In the words of the Court: “Observation of the lower Appellate Court that Ex.B1 is a 30-year-old document is perverse. It was not eligible for presumption under Section 90 Evidence Act, as the date of offering the document—not suit filing—matters.”

Accordingly, the High Court: “Set aside the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 22 of 2004 and restored the decree in O.S. No. 355 of 2000, granting declaration, recovery of possession, and correction of revenue records in favour of the plaintiffs.”

Date of Decision: 5 March 2025