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”.
The Court also held that the auction purchaser was not entitled to either ownership or leasehold rights in respect of the plot and could not claim to be a lessee as the lease in terms of the lease agreement entered into by the DDA was never executed.
“The stage at which the first suit is, would not be a material consideration in deciding the applicability of the bar under Order II Rule 2. What needs to be looked into is whether the cause of action in both suits is one and the same in substance, and whether the plaintiff is agitating the second suit for claiming a relief that was very well available to him at the time of filing the first suit.”
“If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint.”
“The evidence on the part of the appellants would reveal that instead of establishing ‘animus possidendi’ under hostile colour of title, they have tendered evidence indicating only permissive possession and at the same time failed to establish the time from which it was converted to adverse to the title of the respondent which is open and continuous for the prescriptive period.”
Dismissing the appeal, the Court opined that the respondents had all throughout shown their intention to pay the balance consideration for execution of the sale deed whereas the appellants appeared interested only in challenging the decree before higher Courts.
If the sale-deed is duly executed and sufficiently stamped and there is no legal or formal defect, the Registering Authority cannot refuse to register the deed.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on determining whether sale deed is a sham.
The Court noted that the additional issue which states that “whether the registered sale deed dated 13.7.2017 was illegally executed” already covers all the ingredients which are necessary for execution of a valid sale deed.
“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”
“Offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent to analyse the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.”
The Court also said that the right to repurchase can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable, with only exception that such a right should not be personal in nature.
The Supreme Court ruled that the value of the plant and machinery must be considered and ascertained for payment of stamp duty on sale deeds.
The saga of twists and turns in facts of the matter starting with a lease deed, revenue entries, compensation, expunction orders, and what not? The series of developments over the past 100 years of suit land even cautioned the Supreme Court from deciding the matter casually.
“Stamp Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh has been amended by the UP (Stamp Amendment Act 1952) and Article 23 of Schedule IB as applicable to UP.”
The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary”, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by the Collector under Section 98(1) of U.P.
Supreme Court: In a suit for specific performance the Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., explained the
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of R. Mahadevan and Sathya Narayana Prasad, JJ. approved the orders of the Deputy
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dinesh Maheshwari* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., held that in cases disclosing deliberate defiance and elective non-performance