Unregistered Sale Deed Cannot Transfer Title In Immovable Property: Tripura HC

An unregistered sale deed cannot confer title on a purchaser, as valid transfer of immovable property mandates registration under the statutory framework. The High Court of Tripura affirmed that permissive possessors cannot claim ownership or protection of possession against the rightful title-holder without a clear plea and proof of adverse possession.

A single-judge bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao dismissed a second appeal challenging concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had rejected the plaintiff's suit for title declaration and allowed the defendant's counter-claim for eviction.

Court Observations and Findings

The High Court observed that the plaintiff failed to produce the alleged unregistered sale deed and, even if produced, it would legally fail to convey title. The Court noted that the revenue records (Khatian) relied upon by the defendant clearly recorded his ownership following a registered partition deed.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Both the trial court and first appellate court have rightly concluded that the existence of the unregistered sale deed itself is in doubt and in any event title does not pass to the plaintiff or his father by virtue of such unregistered sale deed as per the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908. They also found concurrently that the possession of the plaintiff over the subject land was only permissive and there was no plea of adverse possession raised."

Background

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of right, title, and interest, confirmation of possession, and a perpetual injunction regarding the suit schedule property. He asserted that his father had purchased the land from the defendant's father via an unregistered sale deed, which was lost during communal riots in 1980, and that his family had remained in peaceful possession ever since.

Conversely, the defendant argued that the land was recorded in his name in the finally published Khatian after a registered partition among legal heirs in 1999. He maintained that the plaintiff's father was merely permitted by his father in 1990 to temporarily reside on the land as a permissive possessor. The defendant also filed a counter-claim seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession by evicting the plaintiff.

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit and decreed the defendant's counter-claim, holding that title requires a registered instrument under the Registration Act, 1908 and that permissive possessors cannot claim injunctive relief against the true owner. The Addl. District Judge, Court No. 4, Agartala, West Tripura, dismissed the subsequent first appeals (TA 07/2023 and TA 08/2023). Confirming these decisions, the Tripura High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: RSA 19 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:1188
Case Title: Sri Naresh Debbarma v. Sri Atul Debbarma
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Paul Kr. Kalai, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sankar Lodh, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(TRI) 401