Category: Registration Act

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 47 – Time from which registered document operates – Sale operated from the date of execution of the original sale deed, despite the alteration made before registration without the buyer’s consent – This was because the full consideration was paid on the date of execution, and Section 47 of the Registration Act applies to make the sale deed operate from that date.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANWAR RAJ SINGH (D) TH. LRS. — Appellant Vs. GEJO. (D) TH.LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 54 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 67 – Transfer of ownership – Where a deed of sale had been duly executed and registered, its delivery and payment of consideration have been endorsed thereon it would amount to a full transfer of ownership so as to entitle its purchaser to maintain a suit for possession of the property sold

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T.…

Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 32 to 35 – Registration of document – A declaration that a document is null and void, is exclusively within the domain of the civil court, but it does not mean that the High Court cannot examine the question whether or not the Registering Authority performed his statutory duties in the manner prescribed by law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. S.P. VELAYUTHAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. )…

Power of Attorney – Section 49 of the Registration Act can amplify or magnify the clauses contained in the deed of Power of Attorney – Document should expressly authorize the agent, (i) to execute a sale deed; (ii) to present it for registration; and (iii) to admit execution before the Registering Authority.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. UMADEVI NAMBIAR — Appellant Vs. THAMARASSERI ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE REP BY ITS PROCURATOR DEVSSIA’S SON REV. FATHER JOSEPH KAPPIL — Respondent ( Before…

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 32(c) read with Section 33 and 34(2)(c) – Production of original power of attorney -there is really no need for the production of the original power of attorney, when the document is presented for registration by the person standing in the shoes of the second defendant in this case as he would be covered by the provisions of Section 32(a) as he has executed the document though on the strength of the power of attorney –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMAR NATH — Appellant Vs. GIAN CHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Mere agreement of the steps to be taken in future for the division of the properties – HELD If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K. ARUMUGA VELAIAH — Appellant Vs. P.R. RAMASAMY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.