Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005
"The second respondent had no power to retain the release deed on the ground that a civil dispute is pending. The respondent having registered a release deed, as document NO.62/2008, on 21.8.2008, is not competent to withhold the same. Further, the respondent has no power to retain the document, in view of the decision of this Court reported in STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BASANT NAHATA (AIR 2005 SC 3401) and in R.SREEDHAR VS. REGISTERING OFFICER (DISTRICT REGISTRAR) (2008 (1) MLJ 342 = 2008-4-L.W 603). The action of the respondent in retaining the document, registered as document No.62/2008, is arbitrary and illegal."
R.Sreedher vs The Registering Officer (District ... on 14 November, 2007
"The second respondent had no power to retain the release deed on the ground that a civil dispute is pending. The respondent having registered a release deed, as document NO.62/2008, on 21.8.2008, is not competent to withhold the same. Further, the respondent has no power to retain the document, in view of the decision of this Court reported in STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. BASANT NAHATA (AIR 2005 SC 3401) and in R.SREEDHAR VS. REGISTERING OFFICER (DISTRICT REGISTRAR) (2008 (1) MLJ 342 = 2008-4-L.W 603). The action of the respondent in retaining the document, registered as document No.62/2008, is arbitrary and illegal."
V.K.Amalraj vs Inspector General (Registrations) on 2 February, 2011
6.He also relied upon yet another decision in V.K.AMALRAJ VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATIONS), THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS (2011 (1) CWC 283) reiterating the same proposition of law.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.Subramanian vs The Joint Sub-Registrar-Iii on 30 October, 2009
11.In the meanwhile, respondents 2 to 4 by their power agent sold the property in favour of the fifth respondent under the sale deed dated 30.4.2013 registered as Document No.577 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent Sub Registrar, Triplicane. It was admitted by both parties before this Court that the petitioner is having two sons and they have also filed one another suit against respondents 2 to 4 herein in respect of the property of their father viz., late Syed Yacoob Ali, wherein the petitioner was not made as a party. However, when the issue is the subject matter of pending appeal in A.S.No.465 of 2012 filed before this Court challenging the correctness of the judgment and decree dated 20.3.2012 passed in O.S.No.9282 of 2010, the writ petition filed by the petitioner for writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent, Sub Registrar, Triplicane, not to release the sale deed in favour of the fifth respondent, is not maintainable in law as rightly relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 in the two decisions in S.SUBRAMANIAN VS. THE JOINT SUB-REGISTRAR III (DISTRICT REGISTRAR CADRE, TOWN HALL, TRICHY-3) (2010 WRIT L.R.568) and V.K.AMALRAJ VS. INSPECTOR GENERAL (REGISTRATIONS), THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS (2011 (1) CWC 283) for the simple reason that the Sub Registrar has no power to retain the document whether it is a release deed or sale deed.
K.Palanisamy vs The Joint Sub Registrar I on 9 August, 2010
15.Moreover, in K.PALANISAMY VS. THE JOINT SUB REGISTRAR-I, (DISTRICT REGISTRAR), P.N. ROAD, TIRUPPUR, this Court has held that under the Registration Act 1908, the Registrar shall not enquire into the title of the property, while registering a document. Furthermore, once a Registrar completes the process of Registration, he becomes functus officio. In view of that, he cannot retain the same.
1