In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed a tenant’s claim for ownership of a property, emphasizing that no title transfer can occur without a registered document. The tenant had based their ownership claim on a settlement agreement with the landlord, which, the Court ruled, did not equate to transferring ownership.
The dispute began when the landlord filed for eviction, citing the deteriorated state of the property. A settlement was reached, stating that if the tenant paid ₹12,000, the eviction case would be dropped. If the payment was not made, the tenant would be required to vacate. After depositing the stipulated amount, the tenant claimed ownership based on the settlement.
Lower courts supported the landlord’s stance, denying the tenant’s request for permanent injunction. However, the High Court later ruled that the tenant had become the property’s owner upon paying the amount. This led to the landlord appealing to the Supreme Court.
Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan, declared that the settlement neither mentioned nor provided for the transfer of ownership to the tenant. The Court reiterated that only a registered document could transfer ownership, and no such document existed in this case. The ruling clarified that the payment made by the tenant could not be interpreted as the sale price of the property.
The appeal was allowed, reaffirming the principle that property ownership cannot be transferred without the proper legal formalities.
