Can title be claimed under an unregistered sale deed and by adverse possession at the same time?
Coram: Justice N. Sathish Kumar · Justice M.Jothiraman
Adverse possession — Limitation — Declaration of title and permanent injunction — Inconsistent plea of title under an unregistered sale deed — Animus possidendi — Denial of title to the knowledge of the title holder — Adverse possession — Title under an unregistered sale deed — Inconsistent plea — Held: A claim of title under an unregistered sale deed and a claim by adverse possession cannot go together, since it leads to an inconsistent stand. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case based on pleadings and evidences. (¶15, 16) Adverse possession — Essential pleadings and proof — Held further: A person claiming adverse possession must prove the date of entering into possession, its nature, how long he is in possession and whether it was known to the real owners. His possession must be open and undisturbed. (¶18, 19, 20) Adverse possession — Revenue records, Kist and custody of title deed — Not sufficient by themselves — Held further: Mutation of revenue records, payment of Kist, custody of the Title Deed and long possession for more than the statutory period are alone not sufficient to constitute adverse possession, unless denial of title is brought to the knowledge of the title holder. (¶21) Adverse possession — Limitation — Denial of title conveyed to the real owner — Held further: The limitation clock begins to tick only when the denial of title is conveyed to the real owner either expressly or impliedly. The plaintiff having failed to prove that he perfected title by adverse possession, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. (¶21, 22, 23)
Can title be claimed under an unregistered sale deed and by adverse possession at the same time?
No. Both the rights cannot go together, since it leads to an inconsistent stand, and the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case based on pleadings and evidences. Where the person claiming adverse possession admits in cross examination that he is claiming adverse possession based on the unregistered sale deed and not only on the basis of mere adverse possession of the property, the plea is an inconsistent one and is unsustainable.
Is payment of Kist and long possession for more than the statutory period sufficient to constitute adverse possession?
No. Mutation of revenue records, payment of Kist, custody of the original Title Deed and mere long possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period are alone not sufficient to constitute adverse possession, unless denial of title is brought to the knowledge of the title holder, and the limitation clock begins to tick only when the denial of title is conveyed to the real owner either expressly or impliedly. The person claiming adverse possession must also prove the date of entering into possession, the nature of possession, how long he is in possession, whether the factum of possession was known to the real owners and that his possession was open and undisturbed; long possession by itself would not be sufficient, and animus possidendi against the true owner is also necessary.
What did the High Court finally decide on the claim of title by adverse possession?
The Appeal Suit was dismissed with no costs, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Having pleaded title under an unregistered sale deed while also claiming title by adverse possession, and having placed no reliable document before the Court below except a Kist Receipt, whereas the defendants placed documents to prove that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit lands, the plaintiff failed to prove his title over the suit lands by perfecting the title by adverse possession.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Jothiraman J.) Unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this Appeal Suit. Suit is filed for Declaration of Title and Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 13 and their men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and also seeking Injunction restraining the 14th defendant from registering any document presented by defendants 1 to 13 in respect of the suit lands. The parties are referred as per their rankings in the Suit. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm )
Brief case of the plaintiff is as follows: 2.1. The Suit schedule lands and adjacent lands originally belonged to one Kulandaipaiyan. He derived title to the suit lands and adjacent lands by way of grant in the form of D-Card Patta with A.D. condition from the Government of Tamil Nadu and the same were assigned on 1512.1958. As per the conditions mentioned in the assignment, it shall not be alienated or sold in favour of persons other than Adhi Dravidar and further that Kulandaipaiyan should cultivate the same with his own labour as well as of his family. The said Kulandaipaiyan complied with the conditions mentioned in the assignment order dated 15.02.1958. During Updating Registry Scheme, the title of Kulandaipaiyan to the suit lands situate in S.No.55/3D, Uthangarai Village was acknowledged by the Government of Tamil Nadu and UDR patta was granted to an extent of 0.50.0 hectare. The wife of Kulandaiplaiyan, namely Panchalai predeceased him and she died on 16.01.1997. The said Kulandaipaiyan had no issues and he had been residing with his brother’s sons, namely the defendants 1 to 3. Kulandaipaiyan died on 04.09.1999 leaving behind him, his brother’s sons, namely defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs to succeed to the suit lands and adjacent lands and became absolute owners of the same. 2.2. On 22.08.2000, the defendants 1 to 3 sold away the suit lands measuring an extent of 0.76 acres within specified boundaries in S.No.55/3D in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) favour of the plaintiff, who is the son of 1st defendant and also belongs to Adhi Dravida Caste for a valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/- by executing unregistered sale deed. Possession was also handed over to the plaintiff on 22.08.2000 and on the same day, the defendants 1 to 3 handed over the original title deeds to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands since 22.08.2000. So, entering into possession of the suit lands by the plaintiff has become adverse right from 22.08.2000 as against the defendants 1 to 3 who were the original owners. The plaintiff has perfected title to the suit lands by adverse possession even as early as on 22.08.2012 when 12 years period got completed. The plaintiff has been paying Kist in respect of the suit lands. 2.3. In the month of July 2017, the defendants 1 to 3 started claiming rights in the suit lands by levelling false and untenable allegations. Defendants 1 to 3 further proclaimed that they would create sale deeds in favour of 3 rd parties in order to defeat and defraud the rights of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff called upon the 14th defendant not to register any document at the instance of the defendants 1 to 3 or others in respect of the suit lands. However, the defendants 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the 12 th defendant. The defendants 1, 3 to 12 have no title to the said 0.70 acre of lands situate in S.No.55/3D and therefore, the 12th defendant cannot derive title to the suit lands. The sale deed dated 24.10.2017 in favour of the 12 th defendant executed by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) defendants 1 and 3 to 11 is a sham and nominal document and it has not come into force and it is not acted upon. On 10.11.2017, the 2 nd defendant had also created a registered sale deed in favour of the 13th defendant in respect of 0.30 acres of lands within the specified boundaries in Suit S.No.55/3D as the 2 nd defendant himself has no title or right in the lands covered under the registered agreement dated 10.11.2017. Hence the Suit.
Brief case of the defendants 1 to 3 is as follows: 3. It is not correct to allege that on 22.08.2000, he defendants 1 to 3 allegedly sold away the suit lands measuring an extent of 0.76 acres under unregistered sale Deed. The plaintiff claimed title on the basis of unregistered Sale Deed dated 22.0.2008, on the other hand, he claimed title in respect of the suit property by way of adverse possession, in fact both the right cannot go together. In fact no title can be declared on the basis of adverse possession. In the 3rd week of August, 2000, the village panchayat was held in the village of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3, due to the family quarrel among the defendants 1 to 3 and their sisters, namely Saroja, Kamatchi, Chinnapappa and Vediammal, at the time of panchayat, the village elders obtained signatures of the defendants 1 to 3 on several unfilled stamp papers, green sheets and white sheets, to bind their decision and the same is handed over to the plaintiff, who is an educated person as well as Government servant. Now the defendants 1 to 3 learnt that the plaintiff is intending to grab the suit property. The defendants 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) to 3 sold out the property to an extent of acre 0.70 in suit in S.No.55/3D, the present S.No.55/3D1 in favour of the 12 th defendant for a consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. On the same day, possession was handed over in favour of the 12th defendant. The defendants 1 to 3 have been in joint possession and enjoyment into the remaining property in S.No.55/3D1.
Brief case of the defendants 12 and 13 is as follows: 4.1. There was an oral partition effected among the defendants 1 to 3 in respect of suit property to an extent of 0.50.0 Hectare in S.No.55/3D in Uthangarai Village. But it is false and not correct to allege that on 22.08.2000, the defendants 1 to 3 allegedly sold away the suit lands measuring an extent of 0.76 acres in favour of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/-. 0.70 acres which was jointly sold to the defendants 1 to 3 and they had been in possession and enjoyment of the same till execution of the sale deed in favour of the 12th defendant. After purchase, the 12 th defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the 12 th defendant is a bonafide purchaser and the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief from the 12th defendant. 4.2. The defendants 1 to 3 executed sale deed in favour of the 13 th defendant in Doc.No.4744 of 2019, in the office of the SRO, Uthangarai, for a valuable consideration of Rs.75,000/-/ Considering the exclusive title and possession of the 13th defendant into the said property, the new sub division was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) also assigned as S.No.55/8, Dey Hectare 0.71.41. Hence the 13 th defendant is a bonafide purchaser.
Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of Declaration as prayed for in the plaint?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the title of suit property by adverse possession?
(iv) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to ?
On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1. One Murugan was examined as PW2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On the side of the 1st defendant, 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and the 13 th defendant was examined as DW2 and Exs.B1 to B24 were marked. Findings of the Trial Court
The plaintiff has taken inconsistent plea without any basis: The plaintiff should have filed a Suit for Specific Performance, based on unregistered Sale Deed under Ex.A1. Except A6- Kist Receipt, no other https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) document has been placed to prove that the plaintiff has perfected the title through adverse possession from 22/08.2000 and has been in possession and enjoyment as against the title of the defendants 1 to 3. Oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff would submit that the defendants 1 to 3 had conveyed 76 Cents in S.F.No.55/3D to the plaintiff under Ex.A1- Unregistered Sale Deed dated 22.08.2000, accordingly the plaintiff became the owner of the property and he has been in possession and enjoyment from 22.08.2000 and the suit was filed on 04.01.2018. Therefore, the plaintiff has perfected the title by adverse possession. The plaintiff has not taken any inconsistent pleas, whereas he has taken an alternative plea of his title by adverse possession. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has elected to prove his title in all legal ways. The Court below has failed to prove that the plaintiff has produced original Kist Receipt – Ex.A6 dated 18.01.2002 to prove his possession. As per Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record which has not been rebutted. The defendant had not produced any document or let in evidence to prove they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property post the sale deed – Ex.A1 executed in favour of the plaintiff. When the 1 st defendant has categorically admitted his signature, which was obtained before Panchayat, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) Court below without framing an issue regarding the genuineness of Ex.A1 – Unregistered Sale Deed, has non suited the case and held that plaintiff ought to have registered Ex.A1.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents R12 and R13 would submit that the alleged unregistered Sale Deed dated 22.08.2000 under Ex.A1 cannot be taken into consideration to prove adverse possession of the plaintiff for the suit schedule properties. It can only be considered that the plaintiff was a permissive occupier and the plaintiff has not perfected his title of the suit properties by adverse possession. Mere production of Ex.A6 – Kist Receipt is not sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiff. The defendants 12 and 13 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration from the defendants 1 and 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 / defendants 1 to 3 would submit that the plaintiff got title based on the unregistered Sale Deed dated 22.08.2000 and on the other hand, he claimed title in respect of the suit property on the basis of Adverse Possession and both the right cannot go together and no title can be declared on the basis of adverse possession and the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of Declaration of Title by claiming Adverse Possession. Hence the claim of the plaintiff is unsustainable and prays for dismissal of this appeal suit. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm )
We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
The following points arises for consideration arises in this appeal : (I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Declaration as sought for in the plaint and for Permanent Injunction as prayed for in the plaint ? (II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the title of suit property by adverse possession ? Point Nos.(I) and (II)
It is not in dispute that the suit schedule lands and adjacent lands in S.No.55/3D originally belong to one Kulandaipaiyan, who derived title by way of conditional assignment dated 15.02.1958 under Ex.A2. The said Kulandaipaiyan was issued D.Card Patta with conditions and the said Kulandaipaiyan complied with the conditions as enumerated in the assignment order dated 15.02.1958 and was in possession of the said lands. Kulandaipaiyan died on 04.09.1999 and his wife predeceased him on 16.01.1997, leaving behind the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs, who became absolute owners of the suit lands measuring 0.50.0 hectare in S.No.55/3D in Uthangarai Village.
According to the plaintiff, who is the son of the 1 st defendant, he purchased an extent of 0.76 acres in S.No.55/3D for a valuable consideration of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) Rs.25,000/- vide unregistered Sale Deed under Ex.A1. Further, according to him, on 22.08.2000 the defendants 1 to 3 handed over original title deeds standing in the name of Kulandaipaiyan and UDR patta dated 16.05.1987 was issued by the Special Tahsildar in Ex.A3 handed over to him. He has taken possession of the said lands on 22.08.2000 itself and since he is in exclusive, continuous, uninterrupted and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit lands for more than 17 years and he is also paying Kist in Ex.A6, hence he has perfected title of suit property by adverse possession.
A perusal of Ex.A1 – Unregistered Sale Deed dated 22.08.2000, shows that the sale deed executed in respect of suit lands to an extent of 0.76 acres in S.No.55/3D in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed title of the suit property on the basis of adverse possession. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove his case based on pleadings and evidences. It is relevant to note that both the right cannot go together, since it leads to inconsistent stand. According to the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 are denying the right of title to the suit property to the plaintiff and during 3 rd week of August, 2000, village panchayat was held in the village of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and alleged that they were disposing of the said properties by resorting to unlawful means. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm )
PW1, in his cross examination, admits that he is claiming adverse possession based on Ex.A1- Unregistered Sale Deed and not only on the basis of mere adverse possession of the suit property. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he has taken inconsistent plea. Since the plaintiff has pleaded that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties from 22.08.200 and the plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession. Except Ex.A6 – Kist Receipt dated 18.01.2002, no reliable document has been placed by the plaintiff before the Court below, whereas the defendants 1 to 3 have placed Exs.B8 to B16 documents to prove that they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit lands.
According to the defendants, in the 3 rd week of August, 2000, village panchayat was held and at that time, the village elders obtained signatures of the defendants 1 to 3 on several unfilled stamp papers, green sheets and white sheets to bind their decision and the same is handed over to the plaintiff and with the help of said papers, which were signed by the defendants 1 to 3 at the time of panchayat, the alleged Sale Deed dated 22.08.2000 has been created. It is seen from the records that the defendants 1 to 3 had sold the property to an extent of 0.70 acres in S.No.53/3D under Doc.No.3587/2017 registered in SRO, Uthangarai for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- in favour of the 12 th defendant and handed over possession of the same on the same day to the 12 th defendant, which is evident under Ex.B4. Similarly, the defendants 1 to 3 had https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) executed the Sale Deed under Ex.B5 dated 05.09.2019 in favour of the 13 th defendant. Exs.A2 and A3 are the pattas, stands in the name of Kulandaipaiyan and not stands in the name of the plaintiff.
It is relevant to note that the person claiming adverse possession must prove, date of entering into possession, nature of possession, how long he is in possession, whether known to the real owners and his possession was open and undisturbed.
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779, wherein it has been held as follows:
“11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non~use of the property by the owner even for a long time won-t affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well~settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina [AIR 1964 SC 1254], Parsinni v. Sukhi [(1993) 4 SCC 375] and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka [(1997) 7 SCC 567] .) Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm ) Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma [(1996) 8 SCC 128].]”
Further, this Court in Smt.Mamutha Bai v. G.Ramakrishnan, reported in 2024 (3) CTC 622 has summarized the law of adverse possession as follows:
“31.This Court deems fit to summarise the law in this regard. Adverse Possession commences with wrongful possession and is asserted against rightful ownership. Essential pleadings include actual, conclusive, open and uninterrupted hostile possession with clear intent to claim ownership of the property in question, contrary to the true owner-s rights. In order to claim adverse possession, specific averments as to when and how the possession became adverse to the true owner are necessary for computing the limitation period from thereon. The plea of adverse possession is essentially a factual plea and such plea should be pleaded specifically and proved by adducing substantive legal evidence. Long Possession by itself would not be sufficient to prove adverse possession. Animus Possidendi against the true owner is also necessary. Further, permissive possession would never be adverse to the real owner.” By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgment, in the case on hand, payment of kist receipt under Ex.A6 alone not sufficient to substantiate adverse possession. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2026 03:39:30 pm )
It is pertinent to mention that Mutation of revenue records, payment of Kist, custody of the original Title Deed, mere long possession and enjoyment for more than the statutory period, are alone not sufficient to constitute adverse possession, unless denial of title is brought to the knowledge of the title holder. Limitation clock begins to tick only when the denial of title is conveyed to the real owner either expressly or impliedly.
In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove his title over the suit lands by perfecting the title by adverse possession. Point Nos(I) and (II) are answered accordingly. This Court finds no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 10.08.2022 made in O.S.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (N.S.K.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) 04-08-2026
Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC when limitation is a mixed question?
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14807 OF 2024 · Supreme Court of India
Must stray dogs removed from schools and hospitals be released back to the same location?
2025 INSC 1357 · Supreme Court of India
Are the Motor Vehicle Aggregator Guidelines 2020 binding on a State Government issuing an aggregator licence?
2023 INSC 102 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy