Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 72 (0.28 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Registration Act, 1908
The Urban land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) ... vs S.P. Velayutham on 4 May, 2022
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Asset Reconstruction
Company (India) Limited vs. S.P. Velayutham and others (supra)
observed that if a party questions the very execution of the document
37
or the right and title of a person to execute the document and
present it for registration, the remedy is only to go to Civil Court, but
where a party questions the failure of the Authority to perform its
statutory function in the course of act of registration, it cannot be
said that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India stands completely ousted. In the instant case,
as on the date of execution of the documents, there is no provision
under the Registration Act, 1908 prohibiting the documents for
registration at the threshold and Section 22A was inserted into the
Act in the year 2007 as such it cannot be said that the Registering
Authority failed to discharge its statutory duty.
Telangana Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923
A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 7 March, 2007
23. The above pleadings disclose a tri-partite dispute over the
subject property. The petitioners claim succession through Maharaja
Kishen Pershad and allege that the vendors of respondent Nos.1 to 9,
who are also the declarants in C.C.Nos.E/5946/76, E/6384/76, and
E/8948/76, committed fraud by executing sale deeds even before a
lawful partition among the heirs of Maharaja Kishen Pershad. The
petitioners also instituted O.S.No.154 of 2023 on the file of the III
33
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking
injunction and eviction of respondent Nos.1 to 9. Upon rejection of
the plaint, they preferred C.C.C.A. No.96 of 2024 on the file of this
Court, and the same is pending for adjudication. The main
contention of the petitioners is that no valid permission under sub-
section (3) of Section 27 of the ULC Act was granted for the said
alienation, and that the documents relied upon by respondent Nos.1
to 9 are forged and fabricated, as evidenced from the Photostat
copies of the alleged ULC note files. It is further contended that once
fraud is established and it is shown that no such proceedings exist,
the sale deeds cannot be saved merely by virtue of registration, as
fraud vitiates all transactions and relied upon the decisions in
S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath 61 and A.V.Papayya
Sastry and others vs. Government of A.P and others (supra). The
petitioners further contend that registration of a document comprises
three essential steps: 1) execution of the document by the executants
signing or affixing thumb impression 2) presenting the document for
registration and admitting the execution of the document and 3) Act
of registration. If any of these steps are tainted by fraud or are in
contravention of the prevailing law at the relevant point of time, then
such documents are liable to be declared as null and void.