#Registration Act

The Orissa HC upheld cancellation of a 2001 sale deed where the plot number was fraudulently altered post-registration, ruling Article 59 limitation runs from fraud discovery in 2020 - not execution - safeguarding owners against time-barred challenges to forged documents.

The Madras High Court upheld the trial court’s specific performance decree, holding that an unregistered resale agreement is enforceable under the proviso to Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and that the party alleging forgery bears the burden of proof. It further held that the suit was not barred by limitation.

The Madras High Court held that a temple’s letter lacking title proof cannot trigger the Section 22-A bar to registration. It also ruled that final orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal are binding and cannot be challenged collaterally.

The Court held that admissions of tenancy and rent payment in a written statement sustain a possession decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, removing the need for separate tenancy proof, and that an eviction suit itself is a valid notice to quit, simplifying landlord recovery.

Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 bars registration of a sale deed for an unapproved plot unless the land was previously recorded as a house site, requiring prior house-site registration for any transfer.

The Gauhati High Court ruled that a mutation entry based on an unregistered sale deed cannot extinguish the original vendor's title, and clarified that a suit for declaration coupled with consequential injunction relief falls outside the Section 34 Specific Relief Act proviso bar. This protects property owners from losing title through mere revenue entries and preserves access to declaratory relief with ancillary protections.

The Delhi High Court restored a specific performance suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding an unregistered agreement to sell admissible under Section 49's proviso where full consideration was paid and possession delivered. Stamp duty deficiency is curable by paying a 10x penalty, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits rather than technical dismissal.

The Bombay High Court ruled that a collector may not demand a no-objection from a co-operative society as a pre-condition for registering a consent decree under the Registration Act. This clarifies that Section 37A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not extend to such registrations. Property owners and societies gain certainty that registration cannot be blocked by administrative consent.

A photocopy of a collaboration agreement cannot be treated as a dutiable instrument, so the stamp duty and penalty imposed were set aside and refunded with interest. This clarifies that only original, registered instruments attract stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, affecting parties filing such agreements.

West Bengal State Consumer Commission ruled that an oral agreement for flat sale is legally enforceable, directing a full refund of Rs. 19.75L with 9% interest and Rs. 1.3L compensation for service deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Andhra Pradesh High Court reinforces that disputes involving endowment land under Section 22-A(1)(C) of the Registration Act must first be adjudicated by the Endowments Tribunal under the A.P. Endowments Act, 1987. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that Article 226 jurisdiction cannot be invoked when an efficacious alternative remedy exists, impacting property developers and religious institutions alike.

Kerala High Court rules that an oral partition, though unregistered, is legally valid if proved by subsequent conduct of parties. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for an equal share, instead awarding only an 11/46 share, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of partition implementation.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that once a court conclusively settles a title dispute, administrative authorities cannot prohibit property registration under Section 22A(1)(c) of the Registration Act. The judgment directs removal of the petitioner’s property from the prohibited list, reinforcing that res judicata prevails over administrative overreach in property registration matters.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that unregistered compromise deeds cannot establish legal title to land, and discrepancies in boundary descriptions in property documents render ownership claims invalid. This reinforces the mandatory requirement of registration under the Registration Act and protects bona fide purchasers from informal, undocumented transfers.

Gauhati High Court rules that the 30-day timeline under Section 21A of the Registration Act for issuing land sale NOCs is mandatory, rejecting administrative delays as justification. The decision reinforces statutory compliance, ensuring timely processing of land sale permissions for property owners and buyers.