Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“No provision under the 1908 Act confers power on any authority to refuse registration of a transfer document on the ground that the documents regarding the title of the vendor are not produced, or if his title is not established”.
“Pleadings by themselves do not meet the requirements under Section 17 or Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908 for registration, nor do they satisfy the definition of an “instrument” under Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, 1899.”
“Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.”
“District Registrar is duty bound to draw a distinction between the summary proceeding and the trial nature proceedings with reference to the Registration Act and the Code of Civil Procedure”
by Ajit Warrier*
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 18
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 11 — Res judicata: Only determinations which are essential or fundamental to the substantive decision, and
by Spenta Havewala Kapadia*
A Rundown on Law Relating to Wills, Letters of Administration, Succession Certificates and Heirship Certificates
by Prashant Tripathi†
Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna*, JJ has held that a document of partition which
Andhra Pradesh High Court: M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., expressed that, “If a party to the document wants to annul the document, he
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and Amit B. Borkar, JJ., addressees the present matter while explaining the existence
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agarwal, J. allowed a petition filed by a Sub-Registrar duly appointed under Section 6 of the Registration Act,
Supreme Court: In the matter where the moot question before the Court was that whether the Sub-Registrar (Registration) has authority to cancel