Gauhati HC Explains Who Owns Property Title if Sale Deed is not Registered

The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that mutation entries and criminal court possession orders cannot supersede the necessity of a registered instrument under the Registration Act to transfer ownership. The Bench explained that if sale deed is not registered, there is no transfer of title. 

Justice Kalyan Rai Surana adjudicated on whether an unregistered agreement for sale and subsequent mutation in revenue records could extinguish the title of the original owner. The High Court was hearing two analogous second appeals arising from a title suit and a counter-claim involving a dispute over land in Dhubri district. The Bench examined the interplay between criminal proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. and civil declarations of title. 

Property Possession and Title 

The Gauhati High Court scrutinized the defendants' claim of having acquired rights through an agreement for sale and subsequent symbolic delivery of possession by the police. The Court observed that despite various criminal litigations, the physical possession remained largely with the plaintiff, who had constructed a house and a bakery on the suit land. The Bench analysed that "The undeniable fact is that the agreement for sale was made on 05.06.1989. However, no sale deed was registered by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. ... Therefore, in this case, as no sale deed for the suit land was registered, it would be the onus of the defendant to prove that mutation of land by consent of the plaintiff was in accordance with law, which the defendants had failed to prove." 

Regarding the symbolic nature of possession granted by the Executive Magistrate, the Gauhati High Court noted: "The police report reveals that on 02.09.1998, police had delivered only symbolic possession of the Schedule-B land in favour of the defendants because the police found that the plaintiff at that time was already possessing the same by constructing a house and residing with his family over the disputed land." 

Background 

The dispute originated from an agreement for sale executed in 1989 between the plaintiff and defendant for a plot of land. While the defendants claimed to have paid the full consideration and obtained possession, the plaintiff alleged the agreement was rescinded due to non-payment within the stipulated time. Following river erosion, the plaintiff shifted his residence to the suit land. Meanwhile, the defendants obtained mutation in their name and initiated proceedings under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., where an Executive Magistrate declared possession in their favor. 

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and continuous possession, and for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, declaring the plaintiff's title. The Gauhati High Court, in the present second appeal, upheld the First Appellate Court's judgment, emphasizing that without a registered sale deed, the plaintiff never lost his legal title. 

Case Details: 

Case No.: RSA/16/2010 

Neutral Citation: 2026:GAU-AS:13100 

Case Title: Mina Rani Saha vs. On the death of Mozuammel Haque his legal heirs and Ors 

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. S.K. Ghosh, Advocate; S P Choudhury, S K Ghosh, S C Keyal 

For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Kalita, Advocate; Ms. J Purkayastha, Mr. G P Bhowmik 

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GAU) 1267