Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.74 seconds)
Documents citing K.Krishnan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 20 June, 2019

K.Arun vs / on 1 August, 2024

8.It is noticed that the decision of the Court in the case of K.Krishnan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and another reported in 2019 (4) TNLJ 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.3389 of 2018 92 (Civil), has not ordered complete waiver of stamp duty. All that the Court has ordered is relaxation of the limitation under Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 for payment of registration fee. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer for registration of the decree passed in A.S.(MD) No.95 of 2013 on 02.08.2017 without stamp duty cannot be allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

M.Rajendran vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 25 June, 2021

11.Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(MD).Nos.8091 & 8093 of 2021, further submitted that the respondents cannot insist for payment of the registration fee on the value of the property and it can be levied only on the total value of the suit. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of K.Krishnan Vs. The Inspector General of Registration and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 8/27 W.P.(MD).Nos.8091, 8093 & 9446 of 2020 another reported in 2019 (4) TLNJ 92 (Civil).
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 9 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

M.Devadoss vs P.Bhagyalakshmi (Died) on 15 November, 2022

The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the order of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) number 13896 5 (2003) 3 SCC 229 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ______________ Page No.17 of 40 Appeal Suit Nos.79 & 80 of 2006 of 2019 in K.Krishnan vs. the Inspector General of Registration and another, more specifically paragraph Nos.14 to 16 to contend that the non- registration will not have any effect on the title and once the decree which is granted in the present suit is registered, even the anomaly of non registration will be cured.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

M.Devadoss vs P.Bhagyalakshmi (Died) on 15 November, 2022

The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the order of the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD) number 13896 of 2019 in K.Krishnan vs. the Inspector General of Registration and another, more specifically paragraph Nos.14 to 16 to contend that the non- registration will not have any effect on the title and once the decree which is granted in the present suit is registered, even the anomaly of non registration will be cured.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

S.Syed Yusub vs The Sub Registrar on 10 March, 2020

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants the decree to be registered mainly on the ground that his title has been declared to the property and he wants it to be reflected in the encumbrance certificate. The learned counsel submitted that, even though Section 23 of the Registration Act provides for a limitation, the same is only directory in nature and it is not mandatory. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in K.Krishnan vs. Inspector General of Registration and Another http://www.judis.nic.in 4 reported in (2019) 6 MLJ 523.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N A Venkatesh - Full Document

J.Gandhi vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 8 September, 2021

3. Considering the pending document of the petitioner, i.e. P/Thiruporur/238/2020, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 28.07.2021 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While disposing the representation, the second respondent shall keep in mind the observations of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of K.Krishnan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, by its _____________ http://www.judis.nic.in Page No. 2 of 5 W.P.No.18952 of 2021 order dated 20.06.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019, wherein, it has been held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

J.Gandhi vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 8 September, 2021

3. Considering the pending document of the petitioner, i.e. P/Thiruporur/238/2020, the second respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 28.07.2021 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. While disposing the representation, the second respondent shall keep in mind the observations of the Madurai Bench of this Court in the case of K.Krishnan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and others, by its _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No. 2 of 5 W.P.No.18952 of 2021 order dated 20.06.2019 in W.P.(MD) No.13896 of 2019, wherein, it has been held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Vellaiammal vs / on 27 August, 2019

4. According to the petitioner, the said Sections are not applicable to the decree passed by the Civil Court. The legal position on this point has already settled by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.336/2019 in re S.Sarvothaman Vs. Sub-Registrar, Oulgaret, Puducherry and followed by Single Judge in W.P(MD).No.13896 of 2019 in re K.Krishnan Vs. Inspector General of Registration and another (order dated 20.06.2019) reported in 2019 (6) MLJ 523. Hence, the reasoning assigned by the respondent for returning the document without registration is illegal and ultra vires. 3/8 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.30293 of 2019 Sections 23 & 25 of the Registration Act, reads as below:-
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document
1   2 Next