Karnataka High Court rules on immovable property falling under the Transfer of Property Act

Karnataka High Court rules on immovable property falling under the Transfer of Property Act

Maintains that unregistered sale deed cannot defy title

The Karnataka High Court has said that if there is an alienation of immovable property valuing less than Rs.100 and possession is given, it comes under the Transfer of Property Act.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed the appeal filed by an individual named Gangappa, who questioned the findings of the court after he filed a suit seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction, which was rejected.

The appellant claimed that the property mentioned was owned by his maternal grandfather, whose only daughter is the mother of the appellant and hence, the heir to his assets. He alleged that the defendant concocted a fictitious document and interfered in property ownership.

However, the defendant opposed the plea. He stated that his father purchased the property from the plaintiff's maternal grandfather under the 14 November 1963 sale deed. Thus, he acquired absolute rights and title, pursuant to which, the property was bequeathed to him by way of the will dated 11 June 1973.

The defendant maintained that since the market value of the property was less than Rs.100, the sale deed did not warrant any registration. This meant, his father purchased the property under an unregistered sale deed, and he sought dismissal of the case.

The bench noted that no evidence was furnished by the plaintiff to substantiate his claim on the possession of the property. On the contrary, the defendant had produced rebuttal evidence by submitting a copy of the patta book and land revenue receipts. The defendant also succeeded in cross-examination responses that his father was, in fact, cultivating the questioned land.

The bench, thus, ruled, "It is a trite law that the sale of immovable property of a value less than Rs.100 can be made either by a registered document or by delivery of possession. In such cases, the vendee acquires complete title by mere delivery of the possession of the property. The fact that there is in addition an unregistered sale deed, cannot affect the title acquired by him. If there is physical delivery of possession, an unregistered deed would not be rendered nugatory on account of the existence of an unregistered sale deed."

The court added, "If in pursuance of an unregistered sale deed, possession has been delivered, the buyer can fall back upon the title by delivery of the possession, though the unregistered sale deed by itself does not convey the title."

Clarifying further, the bench ruled, "The Transfer of Property Act clearly mentions that there are only two modes of transfer by sale. (i) registered instrument; (ii) delivery of possession. The first overlaps the second, for, a transfer may in all cases be made by a registered instrument. It is only in the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than Rs.100 that the Act allows the simpler alternative of delivery of possession."

It held, "The transaction is of the year 1963. Therefore, it is presumed that the vendor transferred the title and it was authenticated by delivery of possession. There is evidence dehors the unregistered sale deed, which is amply sufficient to support the conclusion."

"The appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there was a sale accompanied by delivery of possession and that fact cannot be disputed. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration," the court concluded.