Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.39 seconds)B Basavaraju vs State Of Karnataka By on 17 November, 2020
The facts of the instant case are similar to the
facts of the above case. In the absence of any
allegation imputing knowledge of the petitioner about
the falsity of the document (impersonation) merely on
the basis of registration of the said document by the
petitioner in the course of his duties is wholly illegal
and cannot be sustained.
S. Sreenivasa Rao vs Sub-Registrar (Headquarters) on 1 August, 1990
In this context, it may
be useful to refer to the decision relied on by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
case of S.Sreenivasa Rao Vs. Sub Registrar,
reported in ILR 1990 KAR 3740. Considering
the similar issue raised before this Court as to
the duties of the Sub Registrar, the Division
Bench of this Court at para 6 of the said order
has observed as under:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
D.K Shivakumar vs Assistant Director, Enforcement ... on 6 January, 2021
9. From the above proposition, it follows that
when the document is presented for registration, the
Sub Registrar is not required to investigate into the
title of the parties executing the document nor it is
open to Sub Registrar to refuse registration of the
document, unless the presentation thereof is objected
to on the ground mentioned therein. The co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. D.Shivakumar
Vs. The State and another [W.P.No.55725/2016
(GM-RES)] in the identical facts considering Rule 73
of the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965, has
observed thus;