| 1. | W.A. No. 3573 of 2023 | 12/02/2024 | Section 77-A of the Registration Act | The Madras High Court set aside the dismissal of a writ petition filed by K. Murugesan, directing the District Registrar of Namakkal to conduct an inquiry into the alleged fraudulent registration of a document. The court clarified that authorities must act under Section 77-A of the Registration Act for documents registered after the amendment on 16.08.2022. | 77-A |  |
| 2. | C.A.No. 14808 of 2024 | 20/12/2024 | Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 | The Supreme Court ruled that a compromise decree recognizing a pre-existing right does not require registration or stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. It set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order that had upheld stamp duty on such a decree. | 3835_2021 compromise decree stampduty | |
| 3. | C.A.No. 6333 of 2013 | 24/10/2024 | Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 | The Supreme Court upheld the validity of a gift deed, ruling that it was duly accepted and acted upon, making its later revocation void. The court also held that the suit for possession based on ownership was within the 12-year limitation period. | 4094_2012_13_1501_56827_Judgement_24-Oct-2024 | |
| 4. | CIVIL APPEAL Diary No(s). 38616/2018 | 12/07/2018 | Indian Registration Act, 1908. | The Supreme Court ruled that an agreement for sale does not transfer ownership unless a registered sale deed is executed. It set aside the NCLAT's declaration that the sale deed dated 31.10.2011 was not binding on the company, while keeping open the parties' rights to seek legal remedies regarding ownership claims. | 3861620185458313order07-jan-2025-582080 (2) | |
| 5. | C.A. No. 312 of 1971 | 29/09/1972 | Contempt cases | The Supreme Court held that a quasi-judicial authority must follow binding precedents set by the High Court. The appellant, a Commissioner, was found guilty of contempt for deliberately disregarding a High Court ruling and was admonished for his conduct | Baradakanta Mishra,Ex-Commissioner ... vs Bhimsen Dixit on 29 September, 1972 | |
| 6. | RSA-5904-2019 | 23/01/2024 | Registration Act, 1908 | The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for specific performance, ruling that an unregistered agreement to sell could not transfer ownership rights. It upheld the lower courts' findings that the agreement was inadmissible under the Registration Act, 1908. | Bhagwan Singh And Anr vs Dalel Singh on 23 January, 2024 | |
| 7. | W.P. (MD) No. 30712 of 2024 | 18/12/2024 | Registration Act, 1908 | The Madras High Court quashed the Sub-Registrar’s refusal to register a sale deed due to the non-production of the original parent document. It held that registration authorities cannot insist on the original parent deed when certified copies are available, directing the registration of the sale deed accordingly. | C.Sathish Kumar vs The District Registrar ... on 18 December, 2024 | |
| 8. | C.A.No. 3157 of 1998 | 13/10/2004 | General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 | The Supreme Court upheld the Gauhati High Court’s conviction of a Finance Department official for contempt, as he failed to revoke an administrative order banning GPF withdrawals despite court directions. However, considering his long service, the court reduced his sentence to a fine of ₹5,000, instead of imprisonment. | E. T. Sunup vs C. A. N. S. S. Employees Assocn. & Anr on 13 October, 2004 | |
| 9. | C. A. No. 9098 of 2013 | 02/01/2024 | Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 | The Supreme Court ruled that a registered sale deed operates from the date of its execution, not registration, if full consideration is paid. It upheld the High Court’s decision that unilateral changes made to the sale deed before registration, without the buyer’s consent, are invalid. | Kanwar Raj Singh (D) Th_Lrs . vs Gejo (D) Th_Lrs . on 2 January, 2024 | |
| 10. | C. W. P.No. 11055 of 2001 | 28/11/2013 | Section 89(4) of the Registration Act | The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a sale certificate issued in a court auction does not require compulsory registration but must be recorded under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act. It held that the petitioner was not liable to pay stamp duty at the time of issuance and ordered a refund of the deposited amount. | M_S Ferrous Alloy Forgings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 November, 2013 | |
| 11. | W P. (Civil) No. 510 of 2005 | 07/02/2012 | Contempt cases | The Supreme Court directed all states to implement the High-Security Registration Plate (HSRP) scheme, emphasizing its importance for public safety and security. It held defaulting states accountable, imposed fines, and warned officials of contempt proceedings for non-compliance. | Maninderjit Singh Bitta vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 February, 2012 | |
| 12. | S.A. No. 1391 of 2002 | 27/09/2024 | Registration Act, 1908. | The Madras High Court ruled that a General Power of Attorney executed by multiple principals does not automatically terminate upon the death of one principal. The court held that the continuation of such a power depends on the document's terms, the principals' intent, and the nature of their interest in the subject matter. | mhc-1660705 | |
| 13. | W. P. No. 313 of 2020 | 01/10/2020 | Registration Act, 1908. | The Telangana High Court ruled that registering a sale deed after 22 years was valid since it was originally presented within the prescribed period and kept pending for deficit stamp duty. The court held that no time limit exists for registering a pending document and dismissed the petition challenging the registration. | Microsoft Word - wp_313_2020 | |
| 14. | W.P.(Civil) No. 21273 of 2023 | 07/07/2023 | Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 | The Kerala High Court ruled that a Sub-Registrar cannot refuse to register a document on the ground that prior title deeds were not produced. It held that even possessory rights can be transferred, and registration cannot be denied based on ownership inquiries beyond the document's execution. | Premakumaran vs Sub Registrar on 7 July, 2023 | |
| 15. | W.P. (C) No. 1605 of 2010) | 20/02/2018 | Registration Act, 1908 | The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a registered sale deed cannot be canceled by the Registrar under Section 68 of the Registration Act, 1908. It held that disputes over title must be resolved through civil courts or under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and quashed the Registrar’s notice seeking cancellation of the sale deed. | Priti Devi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 February, 2018 | |
| 16. | W. P. (Civil) No. 1864 of 2023 | 05/09/2024 | Registration Act, 1908. | The sale deed dispute involves a petitioner, Ammini, who purchased land in 1987 but faced issues registering a new sale due to a unilateral cancellation by the original seller. The Kerala High Court ruled that such unilateral cancellations are invalid and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the new sale deed. | sale-deed-582654 (1) | |
| 17. | C. A. No. 1598 of 2023 | 01/11/2023 | Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act. | The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Shakeel Ahmed, overturning the Delhi High Court's decision that granted possession and mesne profits to Syed Akhlaq Hussain. The Court held that unregistered agreements, power of attorney, and affidavits cannot confer ownership rights, dismissing the suit. | shakeel-ahmed-v-syed-akhlaq-hussainwatermark-1563271 | |
| 18. | C. A. No. 83 of 1956 | 20/09/1960 | Registration Act, 1908. | In The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari (1960), the Supreme Court of India ruled that a State government is bound to obey court orders, including temporary injunctions, and can be proceeded against for contempt if it willfully disobeys them. The case arose when Bihar issued a notification under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, despite an injunction restraining it from doing so. The Court upheld the attachment of State property for contempt, emphasizing that the rule of law applies equally to the government as it does to private parties. | The State Of Bihar vs Rani Sonabati Kumari on 20 September, 1960 | |
| 19. | WP No. 106890 of 2023 | 04/01/2024 | Registration Act, 1908. | The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition by Ramesh T. Umarani seeking deletion of a fraudulent sale agreement entry in the encumbrance certificate of his land, advising him to approach a civil court. The court directed the Inspector General of Registration to implement Aadhaar-based identity verification for property registrations to prevent fraud. | WP106890-23-04-01-2024 | |
| 20. | WP No. 38439 of 2024 | 08/01/2025 | Evidence Act, 1872 | The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed the rejection of Gopal Das's mutation application based on a Will and remanded the matter to the concerned municipal authority. The court held that a Will, if undisputed and executed per legal requirements, can be relied upon for mutation without requiring strict proof under the Evidence Act. | wp384392024finalorder08-01-2025-582262watermark-1683299 (1) | |
