Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 152 (1.16 seconds)
Documents citing Yanala Malleshwari And Ors. vs Ananthula Sayamma And Ors. on 24 October, 2006

G.D.Subramaniam vs The Sub Registrar on 10 February, 2009

The said rule 26 (k) was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kaitha Narasimha v. The State Government of A.P., rep. By its Principal Secretary,(W.P.No.3744/2007) by contending that the same is ultra vires of the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and is contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench in Yanala Malleshwari and others v. Ananthula Sayamma and others. The Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court,by order dated 13.3.2007., while upholding the said Rule has held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 21 - S Nagamuthu - Full Document

S.Kanniammal @ Mangai vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2021

17. That Rule was questioned before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kalitha Narasimha v. The State Government of A.P., in W.P.No.3744 of 2007 and on the ground that the amendment was contrary to the judgment of the 64/108 http://www.judis.nic.in Full Bench in the case of Yanala Malleshwari and others v. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97. By order dated 13.3.2007, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had upheld the said Rule and as on today, the Rule that prevails in Andhra Pradesh is that the cancellation deed of previously registered deed of conveyance on sale cannot be accepted for presentation by the Registrar unilaterally.
Madras High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 3 - R S Kumar - Full Document

R.Ramasubbu vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 18 March, 2011

Coming to the facts of this case, as already stated, the Writ Petition questioning the unilateral registration of the cancellation deeds was allowed on the ground that the registration has been done by the Registrar without notice to the purchaser. While setting aside the registration, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the Registrar to proceed further with the registration after due notice to the writ petitioner, namely, the purchaser. However, the Review Application was allowed on the ground that the pendency of the Suit relating to the title and possession was not brought to the notice of the Court. The learned Judge had also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanala Malleshwari and others V. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97 (F.B) (A.P.). In view of our finding that the said Full Bench judgment cannot be pressed into service for the reasons stated in this order and the pendency of the Suit does not preclude the Court from considering the authority of the Registrar to register the deeds of cancellation of the earlier deeds of conveyance on sale unilaterally, the order dated 10.09.2008 passed in the Writ Petition No.37686 of 2007 should alone be sustained. We also find that there was no error of law or any reason whatsoever for review of the said order and as a necessary corollary, the order in the Review Application should be set aside. We also make it clear that the pending Suit between the parties shall be dealt with on its own merits."
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

E.R.Kalaivan vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 9 July, 2009

17. That Rule was questioned before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kalitha Narasimha v. The State Government of A.P., in W.P.No.3744 of 2007 and on the ground that the amendment was contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Yanala Malleshwari and others v. Ananthula Sayamma and others, 2007 (1) CTC 97. By order dated 13.3.2007, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court had upheld the said Rule and as on today, the Rule that prevails in Andhra Pradesh is that the cancellation deed of previously registered deed of conveyance on sale cannot be accepted for presentation by the Registrar unilaterally.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 22 - D Murugesan - Full Document

Smt. Vatumalli Laxmi Prasanna, W/O. ... vs The State Of Telangana, Rep.By Its ... on 21 September, 2017

14. Proviso appended to Rule 26(i)(k)(i) of the Rules, 1960 carves out exception to the requirements in main provision. According to this proviso prior consent and presence of all parties to previously registered document made need not be present and an authorized officer on behalf of State can unilaterally present deed of cancellation. It is thus clear that after the judgment of Yanala Malleshwari (supra) though Rule 26 is amended by introducing Rule 26(i)(k), its scope is limited to parties to the document other than State and has no application to presentation of document of unilateral cancellation of earlier sale deed by State. At this stage, it is appropriate to note that the deed of cancellation registered by the Sub-Registrar, impugned in these writ petitions, is made in invoking proviso appended to Rule 26 (i) (k)(i) of the Rules.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Smt. Asha Singh & Anr. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax & ... on 2 December, 2019

It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench while settling the ratio also relied upon land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 SCC 761, wherein the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yanalla Malleswari Vs. Ananthalu Sayamma (supra) too was considered. The Apex Court held that the registering authority could not decide whether the document which was executed by a person who had title as was recited in the given instrument. The authority, as such, was not expected to decide the title/right of the parties to the agreement nor was expected to examine the document to ascertain whether the same was legal and permissible in law or undertake any analysis thereof. If the document registered by the registering authority was illegal or if there was any irregularity then the course to question that was by invoking appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Smt. Kusum Lata vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others on 18 May, 2018

It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench while settling the ratio also relied upon land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 SCC 761, wherein the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yanalla Malleswari Vs. Ananthalu Sayamma (supra) too was considered. The Apex Court held that the registering authority could not decide whether the document which was executed by a person who had title as was recited in the given instrument. The authority, as such, was not expected to decide the title/right of the parties to the agreement nor was expected to examine the document to ascertain whether the same was legal and permissible in law or undertake any analysis thereof. If the document registered by the registering authority was illegal or if there was any irregularity then the course to question that was by invoking appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Shalini Saincher And Another vs Sayeeda Abood And 20 Others on 17 June, 2025

29. The facts in the present cases are that the registered sale deeds were executed in the years 1980 and 1982 vide document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. As on that date, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting to entertain the registrations and the Registrar has no power to examine the validity or otherwise of the documents. Therefore, the principles laid down in Yanala Malleshwari's case (supra), as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed in Satyapal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh's case (supra) squarely apply to the cases on hand.
Telangana High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammed Fayazuddin Khan vs The State Of Telangana on 17 June, 2025

29. The facts in the present cases are that the registered sale deeds were executed in the years 1980 and 1982 vide document Nos.1937/1980 dated 06.10.1980 and 6451/1982 dated 07.09.1982. As on that date, there is no provision in the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting to entertain the registrations and the Registrar has no power to examine the validity or otherwise of the documents. Therefore, the principles laid down in Yanala Malleshwari's case (supra), as approved by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment dated 26.10.2016 passed in Satyapal Anand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh's case (supra) squarely apply to the cases on hand.
Telangana High Court Cites 72 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next