MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS. VERSUS M/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD & ORS. (2025 SC)
Judges: The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran
Brief Facts of the Case
The case involved a dispute over land ownership where the respondents (purchasers) claimed ownership based on a 1982 sale agreement executed by a General Power of Attorney holder of the original landowners. However, the sale agreement was not registered despite being a compulsorily registrable document under the Registration Act, 1908.
The Respondent sought protection from dispossession by the Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. (TSIIC). The matter came before the Telangana High Court, where the Single Judge questioned the title and ownership, stating that title disputes should be decided in civil trials rather than writ proceedings. However, the Division Bench of the High Court had restrained TSIIC from dispossessing the respondents.
The appellants (legal heirs of original landowners) challenged the Telangana High Court Division Bench order that restrained the TSIIC from dispossessing the respondents.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran delivered the following key rulings:
Main Principle: The Court held that unregistered agreements do not confer a valid title, placing reliance on Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2012) 1 SCC 656.
Court’s Reasoning: The Court observed that “the very contention of the writ petitioners is only that they have obtained proper conveyances by registered sale deeds from Bhavana society, whose claim is under the agreement of 1982, which has not till date been registered and hence cannot be recognized as a valid mode or instrument of transfer of immovable property”.
Final Order: The Court found that “the writ petitioners (respondent) had not established a valid title” and that “the title to be suspect, which would disentitle them from claiming a rightful possession”. Consequently, the Court restored the High Court’s Single Bench decision not to grant protection from dispossession while setting aside the Division Bench’s order (which had restrained dispossession).
Legal Principle Established: The case reinforced the fundamental principle that if the original sale agreement is unregistered, registration of subsequent instruments based on that unregistered agreement will not confer a valid title to the property.