On 22 January 2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment in Hemalatha (Deceased) through LRs v. Tukaram (Deceased) through LRs & Ors.. Deciding the matter, a Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan, with the judgment authored by Justice Manmohan, reaffirmed that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and cannot be casually branded as a sham. The Court observed that registration is a solemn act and not a mere procedural requirement, as it lends credibility, certainty, and legal sanctity to transactions involving immovable property.
The case arose from a financial arrangement between the parties, where the respondent had mortgaged his residential house to the appellant to clear his outstanding debts. When the respondent failed to redeem the mortgage despite repeated demands, the parties entered into a registered sale deed dated 12 November 1971, by which the property was sold to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.10,000. As the respondent was already in possession of the house, a registered rent agreement was executed thereafter, allowing him to continue occupying the premises as a tenant. For nearly fourteen months, the respondent paid rent and openly acknowledged his status as a tenant. It was only after eviction proceedings were initiated in 1975 that the respondent, in 1977, approached the court claiming that the sale deed was never meant to transfer ownership and was merely a mortgage in disguise.
The Trial Court examined the documents and the conduct of the parties and upheld the sale deed as genuine. This view was affirmed by the First Appellate Court, which found the clear recitals of the registered sale deed, coupled with the respondent’s consistent payment of rent, left little room for doubt about the nature of the transaction. However, in second appeal, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings and treated the sale as a mortgage, thereby setting aside the transaction.
The Supreme Court found this approach to be legally unsustainable. Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Court restored the decision of the First Appellate Court and held that registered sale deeds and rent agreements carry a strong presumption of authenticity. It emphasized that where the terms of a document are clear and unambiguous, courts should not permit belated challenges based on oral assertions that contradict written instruments. The Court also cautioned against attempts to undo registered transactions through afterthought pleadings that are inconsistent with a party’s own conduct. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the registered sale deed was upheld as a valid and genuine transaction.