Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. A bare perusal of aforesaid provision reveals that the disputed transaction, involving sale of immoveable property for consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, could have taken place only by a registered document. Yet alleged declaration deed and receipt dated 13.2.2008 were not registered.

13. In Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and another 2012 (1) CRC 6 S.C., hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:-

"The Registration Act, 1908, was enacted with the intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transactions relating to immovable property and protection from fraud and forgery of documents of transfer. This is achieved by requiring compulsory registration of certain types of documents and providing for consequences of non-registration.

20. Learned Magistrate has also summoned all revisionists under Sections 467,468 and 471. Sections 467 and 468 contemplate forgery of a document or electronic record for different purposes. Similarly, Section 471 also contemplates use of forged document or electronic record as genuine which any accused knows or has reason to believe to be forged. A bare perusal of complaint filed by complainant/opposite party no.2 would reveal that he has not levelled allegation of forgery of any document. The complainant himself contends that both transactions were done by Surjeet Singh, revisionist no. 1. Therefore, it is apparent that the contents of complaint do not constitute any offence of Section 467, 468 and 471 IPC.