Hemalatha (D) by LRs v. Tukaram (D) by LRs & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6640 of 2010, 2026 INSC 82 (Supreme Court of India)
Introduction
Property disputes often travel long roads, but few raise a question as fundamental as this one:
Can a registered sale deed be brushed aside as a “sham” simply because one party later regrets it?
In Hemalatha v. Tukaram, the Supreme Court delivered a strong and much-needed reminder—registered documents carry sanctity, and courts must be extremely slow in tearing them down.
The Background: Sale or Just a Security?
The dispute revolved around a residential house in Bidar, Karnataka.
- Tukaram, the original owner, had mortgaged his house in 1966.
- Facing financial pressure, he executed a registered sale deed on 12 November 1971 in favour of Hemalatha, for ₹10,000.
- On the same day, a registered rent agreement was executed, under which Tukaram continued to occupy the house as a tenant.
Years later, after defaulting on rent and facing eviction proceedings, Tukaram filed a civil suit claiming that the sale deed was not a real sale at all, but only a nominal or sham transaction, allegedly meant to operate as a security for a loan.
What the Courts Below Did
- Trial Court accepted Tukaram’s version, relied heavily on oral evidence, and declared the sale deed sham.
- First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that a clear and registered sale deed could not be contradicted by oral evidence under Section 92 of the Evidence Act.
- High Court restored the trial court’s decree, relying on earlier precedents like Gangabai v. Chhabubai.
This back-and-forth finally brought the matter before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Clear Stand
The Supreme Court decisively sided with the purchaser and restored the sale deed.
1. Registration Creates a Strong Presumption
The Court held that a registered sale deed is not a casual piece of paper—it carries a strong presumption of validity and genuineness. Anyone seeking to declare such a document sham bears a heavy burden of proof. hemlatha case
Courts, the judgment cautioned, must not casually declare registered instruments as sham, as doing so would seriously undermine certainty in property transactions.
2. “Sham” Is Not a Magic Word
Merely using words like sham, nominal, or security in a plaint is not enough. The Court stressed that such pleadings must meet a high standard, similar to the strict requirements under Order VI Rule 4 CPC.
Clever drafting that creates an illusion of a cause of action cannot be allowed to defeat a registered document.
3. Sale ≠ Mortgage Unless the Law Says So
If a transaction is claimed to be a mortgage by conditional sale, the condition must be expressly written into the same document, as mandated by Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act.
In this case:
- The sale deed contained no condition of reconveyance,
- No debtor-creditor relationship was reflected, and
- The document clearly conveyed absolute ownership.
Hence, it could not be re-characterised later as a mortgage.
4. Conduct of the Parties Matters
The Court also relied on surrounding circumstances:
- Rent was paid for months under a registered tenancy agreement,
- Eviction proceedings were initiated much earlier than the suit, and
- Even the plaintiff’s own witness admitted that the house was sold to repay debts.
These facts made the plea of a sham transaction implausible and afterthought-driven.
Why This Judgment Matters
This ruling sends a strong signal to litigants and courts alike:
- Registered sale deeds are not to be undone lightly.
- Oral evidence cannot be used to rewrite clear and unambiguous documents.
- Property law depends on certainty—if registration loses its meaning, the entire system becomes unstable.
The Supreme Court rightly warned that allowing easy challenges to registered deeds would open the floodgates to speculative and dishonest litigation.
Conclusion
The Hemalatha judgment restores balance to property jurisprudence. It protects the integrity of registered documents while still leaving room to challenge them—but only in genuine, well-pleaded, and well-proved cases.
In essence, the Court drew a firm line:
A registered sale deed is presumed real—unless you can prove, with precision and credibility, that it never was.