IS CONSENT DECREE TRANSFERRING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY REGISTERABLE ?

Registration Act 1908, Property Registration, Sale , Transfer of Property Act
Consent Decree, Latest Judgment


Registration of Immovable Property and Stamp Duty payable

Registration of Immovable Property is a costly affair as it requires payment of Stamp Duty which, in certain cases, may runs in Lakhs. But at the same time, until and unless Registration is done, no title is conferred on the purchaser. Therefore for all practical purposes, registration of Property becomes compulsory.

Registration Act Provisions

Section 17 of the Registration Act requires even registration of Court decrees if they transfer right / title or interest in the immovable property.

Supreme Court Judgment - Khushi Ram Vs Nawal Singh

Granting relief to the common citizens In the Judgment titled Khushi Ram Vs Nawal Singh Dated 22-02-2021 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that "Consent Decree in relation to the Property which is subject matter of suit, does not require registration."

This will not only save lots of Legal Hassles but also substantial money in terms of Registration Fees.

Feel Free to Whatsapp me in case of any query / Legal Advise / Legal Help



Location: Delhi, India
Praveen Agrawal Advocate Supreme Court of India A 37 LGF, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar - 4, New Delhi Phone # 9811702850 dokania100@gmail.com NO CALLS PLEASE ONLY WHATSAPP ME - IF I FEEL NECESSARY I WILL CALL YOU BACK

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

WILL PROCEEDINGS START DE-NOVO OR CONTINUE IN CASE OF RETURN OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 CPC?

Image
      Order 7 and Return of Plaint is one of the fundamental objections taken by Defense Counsel in Civil Litigation. In case of return of Plaint from a Court lacking inherent Jurisdiction to the court of appropriate Jurisdiction, a moot question arises for consideration is whether the proceedings shall start “De-Novo” (fresh) or it will be a continuance of the earlier proceedings ?   There has been a difference of opinion even in Supreme Court and therefore the matter was referred to a larger bench. The Issue is now settled in the matter of  EXL Careers Vs. Frankfinn Aviation Services  Private Limited    decided on 05-08-2020 as follows :-    (1) The proceedings will start afresh (DE-NOVO) and NO cognizance of  proceedings or earlier court will be considered.   (2) For the purpose of limitation, Plaintiff is entitled to exclude the period during which he prosecuted the case before the court having no jurisdiction.   ...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more