Back
RAHUL BHARTI
Mohan Lal – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. This writ petition affords a fitting opportunity to this Court to examine as to the actual nature of power and domain of function enjoined upon a registering officer/ authority constituted and acting under the Registration Act, 1908 in the matter of registration of a document, be it a one enlisted under section 17 or Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908. This opportunity has come to visit this court upon getting posed with a situation in the present writ petition when for the delivery of a sale deed even after the parties to the sale deed having appeared along with their identifying witness in terms of Section 34 , admitting the execution of sale deed in terms of Section 35 and 52 by subscribing their signatures, and even getting charged beforehand with the deposit of the requisite registration fees, the Sub-Registrar concerned is not completing the act of registration as envisaged under section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 leaving the petitioner remediless except to invoke writ jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The situation so obtaining also gets tacked with a question as to whether a registering officer/authority can r
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the role of a registering officer is purely administrative and they are not entitled to examine the legality and validity of a document presen....
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
The Sub-Registrar's powers to refuse registration are limited to specific grounds outlined in the Registration Act, and any refusal based on arbitrary reasons or external pressures is unlawful.
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did someth....
The Registering Officer must verify original documents for property registration to prevent fraud, and parties claiming rights must establish their claims before a competent court.
The impugned circular and Rule 44(1)(i) were found to be contrary to sections 34 and 35 of the Registration act, 1908 and beyond the legislative competence of the respondents.
The Sub Registrar cannot refuse registration of a document solely due to title disputes unless it is proven the vendor has no title over the property in question.
The registering officer has no authority to withhold a registered document after the completion of the registration process, and any refusal must be based on clear legal grounds.
The Sub-Registrar must independently decide on the registrability of a deed without needing clarification from the District Registrar, as their investigation into title is not permissible under law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
