[Opinion] Unregistered Agreement ‘Not Valid’ – Even if Registered Subsequently

Nipun Singhvi & Pranjul Chopra – [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1016 (Article)

1. Introduction

The article attempts to analyse the recent landmark judgement delivered in the matter of Mahnoor Fatima Imran and Others v. Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd And Others [2025 INSC 646]. The present case holds importance as the Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed and refused to exercise the extraordinary writ relief to uphold fraud-tainted title claims, stemming from unregistered sale agreements, general power of attorney, and belated administrative validations. The judgment reasserts the core principle that the parties must first prove a clear, valid title and continuous, physical possession by cogent evidence before claiming injunctive protection. By upholding the Hon’ble High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court underscores the importance of a proper boundary between civil-trial remedies, such as specific performance and title suits, and constitutional writs, ensuring land-ceiling statutes cannot be bypassed through procedural complexities.

2. Factual Background

• A parcel of land admeasuring 525.31 acres in Survey No. 83, Raidurg, was held by 11 individuals. The original owners executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of a partnership firm on 07.07.1974.
• Thereafter, when the Land Reforms Act came into force on 01.01.1975, an area of 99.07 acres was declared surplus, which came to be vested with the State Government. The complexity arose when, in exercise of Section 20(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, exemption was extended to each holder to hold an excess of 5 acres instead previous 1000 sq. mtrs.
• The area of 53 acres under dispute in the present case is part of 99.07 acres, which was declared surplus. The GPA holder challenged the declaration of excess land on the ground that the entire Survey No. 83 was treated as vacant agricultural land and therefore, beyond the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act.
• The Land Tribunal, on remand, accepted the plea and directed that the declared excess land be reverted to the original declarants in the year 1990. Previously, an unregistered agreement to sale was executed by the GPA holder for 125-35 acres on 19.03.1982 in favour of a cooperative housing society. Another agreement of the same date was executed between the same vendors and vendees for an area of 99.17 acres, which was later validated by the administrative authority in the year 2006.
• A suit came to be filed by the cooperative housing society, praying that, though physical possession has been handed over, a direction be issued to execute a registered sale deed. This is the same area of land that was declared as excess/surplus land and which was vested in the State Government in the year 1975.
• The primary issue which was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was whether an unregistered instrument, which is validated much belatedly, can provide a legitimate title of land to the purchasers or not.

3. Judgment and Reasoning

The Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the SLP and restored the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge of the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court reasoned that when the said agreement for sale dated 19.03.1982 was executed (which was subsequently validated), the land in question was vested with the State Government and was in the State Government’s possession.

The land reverted to the original declarants only in the year 1990, and therefore, at the time of execution of the said agreement for sale dated 19.03.1982, no title existed with the executing vendors. Drawing reference from Sections 23 and 24 of the Registration Act, 1908, the Apex Court held that any document creating or disposing of an interest in immovable property must be registered within four months of execution, or be registered with condonation of delay within a further four months.

The Hon’ble Court held that in the present case, the administrative order validating the unregistered agreement of 1982 in the year 2006 is materially inconsistent with the original document. Accordingly, it is held that an order could not cure the failure to register the original agreement or validate the title of the cooperative housing society.

As regard the argument that exemption was given to hold 5 acres each instead of 1000 sq. mtrs provided under the Land Ceiling Act, the Hon’ble Court observed that the said exemption is not an entitlement and will have to be proved when a claim is raised or an action against the land is resisted and even then, the declarants cannot have possession over 99.07 acres of land.

The Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court had found possession of the appellants and writ petitioners based on interim orders passed by co-ordinate benches of the Hon’ble High Court. Rejecting the premise, the Apex Court referred to the decision of Balkrishna Dattatraya Galande v. Balkrishna Rambharose Gupta [report in (2020) 19 SCC 119] and held that to obtain injunctive relief in a writ petition, petitioners must prove continuous, actual possession by direct evidence such as panchanama reports, revenue entries, witness testimony, rather than relying on inferences. The Hon’ble Court further held that interim orders in other writs could not be a substitute for cogent evidence. The judgment emphasises that where alternative, adequate remedies exist, such as a specific-performance suit or declaration/title action, petitioners cannot bypass them by seeking permanent protection via Article 226. Writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for trial on the merits, and indefinite injunctive relief should be declined when disputes of title and possession remain unresolved in a civil forum.

Click Here To Read The Full Article