SUPREME COURT SUGGESTS GOVERNMENTS TO DIGITIZE LAND RECORDS USING TAMPER-PROOF TECHNOLOGY LIKE BLOCKCHAIN

The Supreme Court of India’s decision in Hemalatha (D) by Legal Representatives v. Tukaram (D) by Legal Representatives & Others Civil Appeal No. 6640 of 2010, serves as a landmark pronouncement on the threshold required to invalidate registered property deeds. The Appeal was decided by the Two Judge Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan. This decision fundamentally addresses when courts can declare a registered deed a “sham” and the evidentiary standards necessary to overturn property transactions that have been formally registered.
Factual Background
The dispute originated from a property situated at House No. 2-5-9 in Pansal Taleem, Bidar, belonging to Tukaram Bandi. In 1966, Tukaram mortgaged this property to one Mr. Sadanand Garje for ₹8,000, while his brother Ramakrishnappa mortgaged an adjacent property for ₹2,000. When Tukaram faced financial difficulties and could not repay the mortgage amount, Bharatraj (husband of Hemalatha) allegedly extended financial assistance to discharge the mortgage debt and in exchange, a registered sale deed was executed in favor of Hemalatha (wife of Bharatraj) on November 12, 1971, for a consideration of ₹10,000. Simultaneously, a registered rental agreement was executed, allowing Tukaram and his family to continue residing in the property as tenants. After fourteen months of rental payments, Tukaram defaulted, leading to an eviction notice issued in April 1974.
Contentions of Parties
The Appellants contended that the sale deed was a genuine and bona fide transaction for valuable consideration. They emphasized that the registered documents carried a strong presumption of validity and authenticity. The Appellants argued that Tukaram had willingly entered into the transaction to redeem his mortgaged property and that the consideration of ₹10,000 was adequate compensation for the property at that time.
Respondents asserted that the transaction was nominal and sham in nature, representing a mortgage by conditional sale rather than an outright sale. He maintained that no actual possession of the property was handed over, that the sale price was grossly inadequate compared to the market value (reportedly above ₹50,000) and that he had continued paying municipal taxes and maintaining the property as its owner throughout the period. Respondents also argued that the sale consideration was utilized solely to discharge the mortgages of Tukaram’s brother and nephews, providing him no direct benefit.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court unequivocally allowed the appeal and restored the Judgment of the Additional District Judge. The Judgment established several critical principles governing the invalidity of registered deeds.
Presumption of Validity: The Court emphasized that registered documents carry a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. This presumption is not merely procedural but reflects the solemn sanctity afforded by the registration process. Consequently, the onus rests heavily upon the challenger to demonstrate through cogent and material evidence that the deed was never intended to operate as a genuine transfer of title.
Pleading Standards: The Judgment introduced a rigorous standard of pleading, highlighting that a person alleging a registered deed to be sham must clearly convince and make specific averments with material particulars. The Court analogized this standard to Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that “clever drafting creating an illusion of a cause of action” would not be permitted.
Legal Framework for Mortgage by Conditional Sale: The Court comprehensively analyzed Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, establishing that a transaction can only be deemed a mortgage by conditional sale if the relevant condition is explicitly embodied within the same document affecting the sale. The sale deed in question contained no such condition and no separate mortgage agreement was ever executed, which are the critical facts negating Tukaram’s assertion of a conditional sale mortgage.
Factual Findings: The Court found numerous contradictions in Tukaram’s narrative. Most significantly, Tukaram did not raise his pleas of sham transaction and mortgage in his reply to the legal notice of 1974, instead admitting liability for rent and promising payment by November 1974. The time gap between the alleged payment of ₹8,426 in January 1974 toward discharge of the loan and the filing of the suit in June 1977 was deemed unreasonable and indicative of a contrived defense.
Conclusion
This Judgment recalibrates the equilibrium between protecting parties from unconscionable transactions and preserving the sanctity of registered instruments. By establishing a high threshold for invalidating registered deeds, requiring material particulars, cogent evidence and strict adherence to pleading standards, the Judgment reinforces confidence in property titles while preventing frivolous challenges. The Court acknowledged that while equity and fairness remain important, they cannot be invoked to dismantle settled property transactions merely upon suspicion or inadequacy of consideration alone. This pronouncement signals that courts must resist the temptation to undertake elaborate fact-finding missions based on theoretical possibilities, instead anchoring decisions in documentary evidence and contemporaneous conduct of parties. The Judgment also highlights the growing need for digitization and blockchain integration in land records management to eliminate opportunities for sham transactions altogether.

YASH HARI DIXIT
LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALIED SERVICES
Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Understanding SARFAESI Act | Rights of Borrowers 2025, DRT, Supreme Court Judgments” can be viewed at the link below: