SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Kar) 485

B.P.SINGH
A. G. SHIVALINGAPPA – Appellant
Versus
A. G. SHANKARAPPA – Respondent


Advocates:
R.V.JAYAPRAKASH, S.KASHINATH, T.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff/respondent had presented a sale Deed for registration relating to Sy. Nos. 21/7 and 21/8 of village Alur before the Sub-Registrar at - Channagiri on 1st April, 1970. The sub-Registrar, after recording the statement of the defendant/executant, refused to register that document and passed an order under Section 36 of the Indian Registration Act ('the Act' for short ). The said order is rather ambiguous. While he has observed that the executant has denied execution of the document (Ex. P1) he also observed that another document which was executed by the plaintiff should also be produced for registration. He has ultimately refused registration of the document (Ex. P1) on the ground that the execution of the same was not proved. It is quite apparent that if the Sub- registrar refuses to register a document on the ground that any person, by whom it purports to be executed, denies its execution, the aggrieved party may move the District Registrar by way of an application under Section 73 of the Act. On the other hand where the refusal by the Sub- registrar is on any ground other than the denial of the execution, an appeal is provided under section 72 of the A















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top