<div class="xblock xblock-public_view xblock-public_view-vertical" data-course-id="course-v1:EBC-Learning+law-contract+2025" data-init="VerticalStudentView" data-runtime-class="LmsRuntime" data-runtime-version="1" data-block-type="vertical" data-usage-id="block-v1:EBC-Learning+law-contract+2025+type@vertical+block@7561dac50e9c44049832291bd8b9b354" data-request-token="acaa3fe8766311f0bc4f0242ac120007" data-graded="False" data-has-score="False"> <div class="vert-mod"> <div class="vert vert-0" data-id="block-v1:EBC-Learning+law-contract+2025+type@html+block@dac8bd836f494d21b3ba302c1b3d6984"> <div class="xblock xblock-public_view xblock-public_view-html xmodule_display xmodule_HtmlBlock" data-course-id="course-v1:EBC-Learning+law-contract+2025" data-init="XBlockToXModuleShim" data-runtime-class="LmsRuntime" data-runtime-version="1" data-block-type="html" data-usage-id="block-v1:EBC-Learning+law-contract+2025+type@html+block@dac8bd836f494d21b3ba302c1b3d6984" data-request-token="acaa3fe8766311f0bc4f0242ac120007" data-graded="False" data-has-score="False"> <script type="json/xblock-args" class="xblock-json-init-args"> {"xmodule-type": "HTMLModule"} </script> <link rel="stylesheet" href="https://ebc-assets.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/css/course-default-styles.css"> <div class="banner-image" id="banner-element"> Stamp Duty and Registration of Sale Deed Sale Deed </div> <script> var bannerElement = document.getElementById("banner-element"); var imageUrl = "https://ebclearning.com/asset-v1:EBC-Learning+law-contract+2025+type@asset+block@stamp.webp"; bannerElement.setAttribute("data-image-url", ""); bannerElement.style.setProperty("--image-url", `url(${imageUrl})`); </script> <div class="body-text-large"> T<body class="c9 doc-content">he legal validity of a sale deed, particularly regarding its registration, is a cornerstone of property law in India. Sections 54 of TOPA, and Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, form the statutory foundation for the transfer of ownership through sale deeds. Section 54 of TOPA mandates that a sale of tangible immovable property valued at ₹100 or more must be effected through a registered instrument. For property valued below ₹100, the transfer can alternatively occur through delivery of possession or by a registered deed. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, provides that, “other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property” are compulsorily registrable. Unregistered sale deeds, while potentially admissible for collateral purposes, fail to confer title or ownership under the law.Advantages of registration are as follows: “The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration. Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future ‘any right, title or interest’ whether vested or contingent of the value of ₹100 and upwards to or in immovable property. Section 49 of the said Act provides that no document required by Section 17 to be registered shall, affect any immovable property comprising therein or received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, unless it has been registered. Registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Registration provides safety and security to transactions relating to immovable property, even if the document is lost or destroyed. It gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. Registration provides information to people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of the rights which persons may have, affecting that property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any particular property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal obligation or liability and who is or are the person/s presently having right, title, and interest in the property. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuates documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain what the particulars are and as far as land is concerned what obligations exist with regard to them. It ensures that every person dealing with immovable property can rely with confidence upon the statements contained in the registers (maintained under the said Act) as a full and complete account of all transactions by which the title to the property may be affected and secure extracts/copies duly certified.”<a href="#ftnt1" id="ftnt_ref1">[1]</a>In the case of Dhananjezhiyan v. Kuppu<a href="#ftnt2" id="ftnt_ref2">[2]</a>, the Court held that unstamped and unregistered documents are inadmissible in evidence. It cannot be relied upon in Court proceedings, when such a document becomes the basis of claim of person tracing his/her title over the property. In the case of Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) v. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske<a href="#ftnt3" id="ftnt_ref3">[3]</a> it was held that, “There can be no doubt with respect to the position that where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of  consideration  have  been endorsed  thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold. The very object of the mandate for registration of transfer of an immovable property worth more than ₹100/- under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, read with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, is primarily to give certainty to title. When execution is challenged, registration by itself is no proof of execution and proof of complying with Section 67 of the Evidence Act is necessary. There can be no reason to disbelieve a recital contained in a registered sale deed regarding payment of consideration, executed by the vendor. Hence, if it is said to have already been paid, going by the registered sale deed, certainly it is for the vendor asserting non-passing of consideration to prove the said asserted fact. Bearing in mind the aforesaid aspects the aforesaid question has to be approached.”The Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaladevi v. V.R. Somasundaram<a href="#ftnt4" id="ftnt_ref4">[4]</a> clarified the applicability of Section 49 of Registration Act in suits for specific performance. The Supreme Court held that while an unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted as evidence of a completed sale or transfer of ownership, it is admissible to prove an oral agreement for sale. The judgment emphasised that the nature of the suit plays a pivotal role in determining the admissibility of the unregistered document.  The Court observed that in cases where the plaintiff seeks enforcement of an agreement, the unregistered sale deed can be used to establish the contractual terms, even if it cannot serve as evidence of title. This interpretation aligns with the proviso to Section 49, ensuring fairness in disputes where the agreement itself is the subject of litigation. It held that, “The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to the contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of ₹100/- and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of 1908 Act.”The question that arises is whether a sale deed can be unilaterally altered by one party, without the consent or knowledge of the other, after its execution but before its registration. This leads to a further inquiry: At what point does a sale deed take legal effect? In the case of Kanwar Raj Singh (D) v. Gejo (D)<a href="#ftnt5" id="ftnt_ref5">[5]</a>, the Supreme Court of India investigated this question. In this case the dispute arises over the interpretation and effect of a sale deed executed on June 6, 1975, and registered on July 23, 1975. The original plaintiff, Smt. Gejo, sought a declaration of ownership over the entire property measuring 71 kanals and 8 marlas, claiming that the defendant, Kanwar Raj Singh, fraudulently interpolated the sale deed by altering the description of the property sold after the execution of the sale deed but before the registration of the sale deed. The Supreme Court held that, “On plain reading of Section 47, it provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof was required. Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is registered according to the Registration Act, it can operate from a date before the date of its registration. The date of the operation will depend on the nature of the transaction. If, in a given case, a sale deed is executed and the entire agreed consideration is paid on or before execution of the sale deed, after it is registered, it will operate from the date of its execution. The reason is that if its registration was not required, it would have operated from the date of its execution…In terms of Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed where entire consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution. Thus, the sale deed as originally executed will operate. The corrections unilaterally made by the first defendant after the execution of the sale deed without the knowledge and consent of the purchaser will have to be ignored. Only if such changes would have been made with the consent of the original plaintiff, the same could relate back to the date of the execution. It is not even the first defendant’s case that the subsequent correction or interpolation was made before its registration with the consent of the original plaintiff.”A sale deed needs to be stamped with adequate stamp under the relevant state Stamp Act. Unlike Section 49 of the Registration Act, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not allow an unstamped sale deed to be admitted in evidence even for collateral purposes. In the case of T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gabriel<a href="#ftnt6" id="ftnt_ref6">[6]</a> it was held that “Section 35 of the Stamp Act mandates that an instrument chargeable with duty should be stamped so as to make it admissible in evidence. Proviso A to Section 35 of the Stamp Act enables a document to be received in evidence on payment of stamp duty and penalty if the document is chargeable, but not stamped or on payment of deficit duty and penalty, if it is insufficiently stamped. The bar against the admissibility of an instrument which is chargeable with stamp duty and is not stamped is of course absolute whatever be the nature of the purpose, be it for main or collateral purpose, unless the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are complied with. It follows that if the requirements of proviso (A) to Section 35 are satisfied, then the document which is chargeable with duty, but not stamped, can be received in evidence… It is now well settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act”. The judgement of the case was upheld in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra.<a href="#ftnt7" id="ftnt_ref7">[7]</a><hr class="c12"><div><a href="#ftnt_ref1" id="ftnt1">[1]</a> . Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2009) 7 SCC 363. </div><div><a href="#ftnt_ref2" id="ftnt2">[2]</a> . 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 6793.</div><div><a href="#ftnt_ref3" id="ftnt3">[3]</a> . 2023 SCC OnLine SC 566.</div><div><a href="#ftnt_ref4" id="ftnt4">[4]</a> . (2010) 5  SCC 401.</div><div><a href="#ftnt_ref5" id="ftnt5">[5]</a> . (2024) 2 SCC 416.</div><div><a href="#ftnt_ref6" id="ftnt6">[6]</a> . 1981 SCC OnLine AP 4.</div><div><a href="#ftnt_ref7" id="ftnt7">[7]</a> . (2009) 2 SCC 532.</div></body> </div> </div> </div> </div> <script type="text/javascript"> (function (require) { require(['/static/js/dateutil_factory.a28baef97506.js?raw'], function () { require(['js/dateutil_factory'], function (DateUtilFactory) { DateUtilFactory.transform('.localized-datetime'); }); }); }).call(this, require || RequireJS.require); </script> <script> function emit_event(message) { parent.postMessage(message, '*'); } </script> </div>

Browse Legal Professional Education \ Executive Education \ Free Education \ Advanced Programmes Corporate Law Contract Drafting & Law Course Preview

Contract Drafting & Law Course Preview