Gujarat High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Holding That Unregistered Sale Deed Cannot Transfer Title and Sanad Under Bombay Land Revenue Code Is Not Proof of Ownership. The court restored the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff, finding the appellate court's judgment perverse and illegal.

High Court: Gujarat High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 84
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a property dispute where the original plaintiff, Smt. Mala Vira, widow of the deceased, filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 1995 seeking declaration of title and possession. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff on 03.01.2004. The defendant appealed, and the learned Joint District Judge, Veraval, in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2004, reversed the trial court's judgment on 31.07.2004, dismissing the suit. The plaintiff's legal heirs (appellants) filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the appellate court's decision. The High Court admitted the appeal on 06.03.2006, framing five substantial questions of law regarding transfer of title without registered document, adverse possession, evidentiary value of Sanad under Bombay Land Revenue Code, legality of appellate judgment, and burden of proof. The High Court analyzed the evidence and found that the appellate court had erred in relying on an unregistered sale deed to conclude transfer of title, as Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 requires registration for transfer of immovable property. The court also held that there was no evidence of adverse possession and that a Sanad under the Bombay Land Revenue Code is not proof of ownership. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree.

Headnote

A) Property Law - Transfer of Title - Registration Requirement - Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 - Transfer of immovable property requires a registered document; an unregistered sale deed cannot transfer title. The court held that the appellate court erred in relying on an unregistered document to conclude transfer of title. (Paras 1-15)

B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Evidence - Limitation Act, 1963, Article 65 - Claim of title by adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence of possession hostile to the true owner. The court found no such evidence on record and held the appellate court's finding perverse. (Paras 1-15)

C) Property Law - Sanad - Ownership Evidence - Bombay Land Revenue Code - A Sanad issued under the Bombay Land Revenue Code is not evidence of ownership in immovable property, particularly in rural areas. The court held that the appellate court wrongly treated the Sanad as proof of title. (Paras 1-15)

D) Civil Procedure - Burden of Proof - Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The appellate court failed to consider the burden of proof correctly. The court held that the burden lies on the party claiming title, and the appellate court's judgment was not legal and valid. (Paras 1-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether in absence of any registered document as envisaged under the Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 thereof the interest in the immovable property transfers to the original defendant no.2; Whether to claim the title on the basis of adverse possession, any evidence was on record and whereby the decree of the appellate court can be come to be perverse; Whether the Sanad issued under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be termed to be the evidence of ownership in the immovable property, particularly in the Rural area; Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is legal and valid; Whether the Appellate Court has considered the aspect of burden of proof, relevant to the case of a particular party

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Veraval in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2004, and restored the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 1995.

Law Points

  • Transfer of immovable property requires registered document under Section 17 of Registration Act
  • 1908
  • Unregistered sale deed cannot transfer title
  • Adverse possession requires clear and unequivocal evidence
  • Sanad under Bombay Land Revenue Code is not evidence of ownership
  • Burden of proof lies on party claiming title
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026:GUJHC:14105

R/SECOND APPEAL NO. 88 of 2005

2026-02-04

J. C. Doshi

2026:GUJHC:14105

MR ADITYA MISTRI FOR MR AMAR D MITHANI, MR MIHIRKUMAR PATEL FOR MS NANDITA A SUROLLIA

Maiyadeben Malabhai Makvana Since Died Through LHR & Ors.

Kheta Vira Makvana

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil Second Appeal challenging the appellate court's reversal of trial court's decree in a property suit for declaration of title and possession.

Remedy Sought

Appellants (legal heirs of original plaintiff) sought to set aside the appellate court's judgment and restore the trial court's decree.

Filing Reason

The appellate court reversed the trial court's decree, dismissing the suit, which the appellants challenged as illegal and perverse.

Previous Decisions

Trial court decreed the suit on 03.01.2004; appellate court reversed on 31.07.2004.

Issues

Whether in absence of any registered document as envisaged under the Registration Act, 1908, Section 17 thereof the interest in the immovable property transfers to the original defendant no.2? Whether to claim the title on the basis of adverse possession, any evidence was on record and whereby the decree of the appellate court can be come to be perverse? Whether the Sanad issued under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code can be termed to be the evidence of ownership in the immovable property, particularly in the Rural area? Whether the judgment of the Appellate Court is legal and valid? Whether the Appellate Court has considered the aspect of burden of proof, relevant to the case of a particular party?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that the appellate court erred in relying on an unregistered sale deed to conclude transfer of title, as registration is mandatory under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Appellants contended that there was no evidence of adverse possession and that the Sanad under Bombay Land Revenue Code is not proof of ownership. Respondent argued that the appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence and that the Sanad and unregistered document were sufficient to prove title.

Ratio Decidendi

Transfer of immovable property requires a registered document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908; an unregistered sale deed cannot transfer title. Claim of adverse possession must be supported by clear evidence. A Sanad under the Bombay Land Revenue Code is not evidence of ownership. The appellate court's judgment was perverse and illegal, and the trial court's decree was correct.

Judgment Excerpts

This Second Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenges legality of the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004 passed by learned Joint District Judge, Veraval in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 of 2004, whereby, learned Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 03.01.2004 passed by learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 1995. The Second Appeal was admitted on 06.03.2006 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by formulating following questions as substantial question of law :-

Procedural History

Original plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 1995, which was decreed on 03.01.2004. Defendant appealed to the District Court, which allowed the appeal on 31.07.2004, dismissing the suit. Plaintiff's legal heirs filed Second Appeal No.88 of 2005 in the High Court, which was admitted on 06.03.2006 and finally decided on 04.02.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 100
  • Registration Act, 1908: 17
  • Bombay Land Revenue Code:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Allows Second Appeal in Property Dispute, Holding That Unregistered Sale Deed Cannot Transfer Title and Sanad Under Bombay Land Revenue Code Is Not Proof of Ownership. The court restored the trial court's decree in favor of the pla...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Written Statement Despite Commencement of Trial in Small Causes Suit — Due Diligence Requirement Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC Satisfied. The court held that the amendment was necessary to decide the real controve...