Registered Sale Deed Presumed Valid; Minor Discrepancy In Attestation Witness Details Won't Invalidate Execution : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that since the registered sale deed holds a statutory presumption of validity, a minor discrepancy in the testimony of the attesting witness would not by itself render the execution of the sale deed doubtful.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria delivered a judgment in a case where the consolidation authorities and the High Court had declined to recognize the appellants' title, inter alia, on the ground that there was a discrepancy in the particulars of an attesting witness. While the certified copy of the sale deed described the witness as "Baru, resident of Nihandpur Suthari", the witness, while deposing nearly four decades later, described himself as "Baru, son of Nathu, resident of Nasirpur Kalan".

Rejecting the approach adopted by the Courts below, the judgment authored by Justice Mishra held that such discrepancies were insignificant and incapable of dislodging the presumption attached to a registered sale deed, as the presumption of the validity of a sale deed is not derived from the attestation.

“…attestation is not a statutory requirement for the validity of a sale deed. Unlike instruments such as wills or gifts, a sale deed does not derive its validity from attestation. Consequently, minor discrepancies relating to the particulars of an attesting witness cannot, by themselves, render the execution of a registered sale deed doubtful, particularly where the document otherwise carries the statutory presumption attached to registered instruments.”, the Court observed.

The Court said that when the certified copy of the sale deed described the witness as "Baru resident of Nihandpur Suthari", then the minor inconsistency in the attesting witness testimony, which was recorded decades after the execution of the sale deed, would not be a ground to dispute the genuineness of the sale deed, given that a registered sale deed carries a "formidable presumption of validity and genuineness." (See Hemalatha (D) by Legal Representatives v. Tukaram (D) by Legal Representatives and Others, 2026 INSC 82)

“…the certified copy of the registered sale deed produced in the present case carried a presumption as regards its genuineness and due certification, particularly when the genuineness of the sale deed itself has never been questioned.”, the court observed.

Background

The dispute concerned agricultural land in Haridwar purchased through a registered sale deed dated June 4, 1957. The appellants claimed possession since the date of purchase and sought mutation of their names in the revenue records. However, consolidation authorities rejected their claim, holding that the execution of the sale deed had not been proved and that the transaction violated Section 154 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, which imposed restrictions on transfers exceeding prescribed landholding limits.

The Supreme Court disagreed with both findings.

Examining the statutory framework as it existed when the sale deed was executed, the Court held that a transfer in violation of Section 154 was not void but only voidable. Under the then prevailing Section 163 of the Act, such a transfer merely exposed the transferee to ejectment at the instance of the Gaon Sabha and did not automatically invalidate the transaction. The Court noted that no ejectment proceedings had been initiated within the prescribed limitation period.

Referring to its earlier decision in Kripashanker v. Director of Consolidation, the Bench observed that transfers offending Section 154 under the unamended statutory regime were not void ab initio and could not be treated as non-existent. The Court further held that later amendments introduced in 1981, which rendered such transfers void and provided for automatic vesting of land in the State, could not be retrospectively applied to a sale deed executed in 1957.

The Court also examined whether consolidation authorities could disregard the registered sale deed while adjudicating title disputes. Relying on precedents including Gorakh Nath Dube v. Hari Narain Singh and Khursheed v. Shaqoor, the Bench reiterated that consolidation authorities may ignore a document only if it is void. Where a document is merely voidable, its legal effect can be taken away only after it is cancelled by a competent civil court. Until then, it remains binding.

On the issue of proof of execution, the Court held that the authorities below had erred in placing undue emphasis on discrepancies in the description of an attesting witness. The witness had described himself as a resident of one village during testimony, whereas the sale deed mentioned a nearby village. The Court observed that the testimony was recorded nearly 38 years after the execution of the sale deed and such minor variations could not undermine the validity of a registered conveyance.

The Bench stressed that a registered sale deed carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness, and the burden to dislodge that presumption rests heavily on the party challenging the document. It further noted that attestation is not a statutory requirement for the validity of a sale deed and therefore discrepancies relating to attesting witnesses could not, by themselves, render the document doubtful.

Finding no allegation of forgery, coercion or fraud against the sale deed, the Court concluded that the findings of the consolidation authorities and the High Court were unsustainable. It accordingly set aside the impugned orders and directed that the appellants' names be recorded in the revenue records.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the appellants' names were directed to be recorded in the revenue records.

Cause Title: Sarafat Ali (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Haridwar & Ors.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 642

Click here to download judgment