“But I’ve been living there for years — it’s practically mine!”
That was the central argument in the recent Supreme Court case Mahnoor Fatima Imran & Others vs. State of Telangana & Others. However, the apex court rejected this notion, reaffirming that mere possession does not equate to legal ownership of property in India.

The Verdict:
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that an unregistered sale agreement does not confer ownership rights over immovable property. The Court clarified that mere physical possession or even a registered subsequent transaction is insufficient to establish legal title if the original sale agreement was not registered under the law.

Background of the Case:
The dispute arose over a parcel of land in Telangana, which was originally “purchased” in 1982 by Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society through an unregistered sale agreement. Although the transaction was recorded by the Assistant Registrar in 2006, it was never formally registered as required under the Registration Act, 1908. Despite this irregularity, the Society proceeded to sell the land to various individuals, including the petitioners—Mahnoor Fatima Imran and others—who based their ownership claims on possession and subsequent sale.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that legal ownership of immovable property requires a registered title document. An unregistered sale agreement, even if acknowledged or acted upon, cannot establish a valid title. As a result, any subsequent sales, even if duly registered, are tainted if the seller did not hold a legitimate title in the first place. Legal title must flow from a properly executed and registered document.

Why Registration Alone Is Insufficient:
The judgment clarifies a common misconception: that registration alone equates to ownership. The Court cautioned that if the seller’s title is defective—such as when derived from an unregistered or contested transaction—then the buyer cannot claim rightful ownership, regardless of the registration. True ownership requires a clean, continuous, and legally valid chain of title.

Expert Interpretation:
Industry experts echoed the Court’s stance. Anuj Puri, Chairman of ANAROCK Group, noted that registration is merely a step in the larger process and does not by itself create ownership. Vivek Rathi, National Director at Knight Frank India, stated that the Supreme Court’s intent is to make buyers aware of the entire chain of title—not just the final act of registration. Due diligence, they emphasized, must be exhaustive.

Supporting Documents to Prove Ownership:
A complete and verified chain of title documents is essential to establish ownership. These include:

• Title Deed (clearly mentioning ownership)
• Registered Sale Deed
• Mutation Certificate
• Possession Letter
• Property Tax Receipts
• Encumbrance Certificate
• Succession-related documents (such as a will, gift deed, or succession certificate)

Each document adds credibility and legal weight to the ownership claim.

Purpose of Registration:
Registration of property transactions provides a legal public record, enhances transparency, and acts as a safeguard against disputes and fraud. It enables the government to maintain land records, collect taxes, and verify property transfers. However, the Supreme Court clarified that registration must be backed by legal ownership—merely registering a flawed transaction does not legitimize it.

Implications for Buyers and Realtors:
This ruling is a wake-up call for property buyers and real estate agents. Buyers can no longer rely solely on a registered deed or physical possession. Instead, they must conduct thorough due diligence, verify past transactions, and ensure the property is free from encumbrance and legally transferable. For realtors, this means an added layer of scrutiny, increased documentation efforts, and potentially longer sales cycles—but also reduced legal risk and enhanced market transparency in the long run.