Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Registration Act, 1908

115 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS.versusMANJIT KAUR & ORS.

2019 INSC 86931 July 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute over two adjoining land parcels (Khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2) where the predecessor of the appellants, Harbans Singh, claimed exclusive ownership based on a family settlement. A memorandum of family settlement (Exhibit P‑6) dated 10‑03‑1988 was executed by the brothers. The trial court part

ANAPURNA JAISWALversusINDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.

2021 INSC 58330 September 2021Dismissed

The Indian Oil Corporation advertised for petrol pump dealerships in October 2011. Anapurna Jaiswal applied on 11 November 2011 and was placed first, leading to a lease deed dated 8 November 2011. The lease stipulated that its term of 30 years would commence only upon approval of the petrol pump, meaning no lease exist

ICICI BANK LIMITEDversusOFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF APS STAR INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 66330 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

ICICI Bank assigned a portfolio of non‑performing assets (NPAs) worth Rs 52.45 crore to Kotak Mahindra Bank under a deed of assignment. One of the borrowers, APS Star Industries Ltd., entered liquidation and Kotak sought to be substituted as the secured creditor in the winding‑up proceedings. The Company Court and the

A.B. GOVARDHANversusP. RAGOTHAMAN

2024 INSC 64029 August 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant advanced a Rs.10 lakh loan to the respondent, securing it by two registered mortgages and four promissory notes. When the respondent defaulted, he handed over the title deeds of a Chennai property as security under a later agreement, promising to register a sale deed and repay a balance of Rs.2 lakh. The

AMAR NATH (DEAD) THROUGH L.R.versusGIAN CHAND AND ORS.

2022 INSC 10628 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff, Amar Nath, executed a special power of attorney (PoA) on 28‑01‑1987 in favour of the second defendant to sell his land for Rs.55,000. When the first defendant could not pay, the second defendant allegedly returned the PoA on 02‑02‑1987 and the plaintiff claimed it was cancelled, yet no formal notice or r

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusS. NARASIMHULU NAIDU (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.

2021 INSC 42527 August 2021Disposed off

The legal heirs of the late S.V. Srinivasulu Naidu claimed that Union of India had illegally grabbed 7,128.5 sq. yards of land that their father had purchased, relying on a prior suit where the plaintiffs were declared owners of 4,971.5 sq. yards. The Union appealed the Tribunal's order under the Andhra Pradesh Land Gr

ITTIANAM AND ORS.versusCHERICHI @ PADMINI

2010 INSC 43627 July 2010Disposed off

The dispute concerned the grant of letters of administration for seven properties bequeathed in a Will dated 8 May 1967. The testator had acquired full title to items 4‑7 through a sale deed executed on 2 May 1967 and registered on 8 May 1967, before his death on 20 July 1971. The High Court limited the grant to items

M.S. ANANTHAMURTHY & ANR.versusJ. MANJULA

2025 INSC 27327 February 2025Dismissed

The case involved a dispute over a plot of land originally owned by Muniyappa, who executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) and an agreement to sell in favour of A. Saraswathi in 1986. After Muniyappa's death in 1997, Saraswathi, as GPA holder, executed a registered sale deed in 1998 transferring the property to her

K. ARUMUGA VELAIAHversusP.R. RAMASAMY AND ANR.

2022 INSC 10327 January 2022Dismissed

The appellant‑plaintiff, K. Arumuga Velaiyah, claimed a one‑fourth share in ancestral joint family property based on a 1994 will of his grandfather, Periyaiya Servai, and sought partition and separate possession. The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that a partition had already been effected in 1964 by a pancha

SATYA PAL ANANDversusSTATE OF M.P. & ORS.

2016 INSC 98826 October 2016Dismissed

The appellant, Satya Pal Anand, claimed inheritance of a plot allotted to his mother by a housing cooperative society, which after her death unilaterally executed and registered an Extinguishment Deed cancelling the allotment. He entered into a compromise deed receiving Rs.6.5 lakh, but also filed a dispute under the M

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusSURENDRA KORI

2012 INSC 42726 September 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Madhya Pradesh alleged that Surendra Kori, a Deputy Registrar, facilitated the registration of over one hundred forged sale deeds to enable fictitious buyers to claim benefits under a Special Rehabilitation Package for the Sardar Sarovar Project. FIRs and charge‑sheets were filed under IPC sections 420, 46

THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA & ANR.versusM/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. & ORS.

2023 INSC 43126 April 2023Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a sale deed executed by the Official Liquidator of a liquidated company, which conveyed land, building, civil works, plant and machinery, and other assets for a total consideration of Rs.8.35 crores. The first respondent, a nominee of the auction purchaser, sought registration of only the lan

M/S PAUL RUBBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITEDversusAMIT CHAND MITRA & ANR.

2023 INSC 85425 September 2023Dismissed

The dispute arose from a five‑year lease agreement dated 27‑03‑2003 between Paul Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. (lessee) and the landlady (respondents) for approximately 16 cottahs of land in Kolkata, which included a clause for renewal and described the premises as having a factory shed. The lease was not registered, alt

SATYA PAL ANANDversusSTATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

2016 INSC 98825 August 2015

Satya Pal Anand, a septuagenarian, claimed that a plot of land allotted to his mother by a cooperative society was unlawfully cancelled by the society through a Deed of Extinguishment dated 9‑8‑2001, and that subsequent sale deeds to third parties were also void. The Sub‑Registrar refused to cancel the extinguishment d

SHANTI BHUSHAN (D) THR. LR. & ORSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS

2023 INSC 42525 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a 7,818 sq. m. property in Allahabad as tenants and paid stamp duty based on a market value of Rs.6,67,200 calculated using the municipal property‑tax method. The Assistant Stamp Collector re‑valued the land at Rs.24,000 per sq. m., fixing a market value of over Rs.19 crore and demanding a larg

SUMAN JINDAL & ANR.versusM/S ADARSH DEVELOPERS

2019 INSC 57225 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants booked a residential flat with the developer who required a booking amount of 25% of the sale price. Through email correspondence in February 2008, the parties agreed to reduce the booking amount to 15%, which the appellants paid in excess of that amount. The developer later cancelled the allotment, clai

SHYAMSUNDAR RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL & ANR.versusPUSHPABAI NILKANTH PATIL & ORS.

2024 INSC 73024 September 2024Dismissed

The appellants filed a suit for declaration and injunction, after which the defendant sought impoundment of six agreements for sale on the ground that they effected transfer of possession and were therefore conveyances requiring stamp duty and registration. The trial court and the High Court ordered the documents impou

FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG & ORS.versusHINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD.

2020 INSC 36224 April 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant partnership firm owned 249.60 bighas of land that was slated for acquisition by the State of Rajasthan for the benefit of the respondent company. An agreement dated 01.02.1980 provided that about 145 bighas would be sold to the respondent, with the price to be fixed by arbitration. The sole arbitrator fix

HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

2025 INSC 10424 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a flat and paid stamp duty, but later cancelled the booking due to the developer's delay and executed a cancellation deed on 17 March 2015, which was registered on 28 April 2015 after an amendment to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act reduced the refund limitation period from two years

GOVINDBHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL & ORS.versusPATEL RAMANBHAI MATHURBHAI

2019 INSC 107023 September 2019Dismissed

The appellants, sons of the deceased donor, claimed that a property gifted by their father to the respondent was ancestral and that the donor lacked authority to execute the gift deed, alleging the deed was forged. The trial court held the property ancestral, a view affirmed by the first appellate court, but the Gujara

BIKRAM CHATTERJI & ORSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 79923 July 2019Dismissed not complying condition order

Home buyers booked flats in various projects of the Amrapali Group of companies in Noida and Greater Noida, paying substantial amounts between 2010-2014. The builders failed to deliver possession within the promised 36 months and did not pay dues to the Noida and Greater Noida Authorities or repay loans taken from bank

HUSSAIN AHMED CHOUDHURY & ORS.versusHABIBUR RAHMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS & ORS.

2025 INSC 55323 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs, heirs of Siraj Uddin Choudhury, claimed title to land based on a 1958 registered Gift Deed executed by their grandfather. The defendants later executed a sale deed on 5 May 1997, which the plaintiffs alleged was void because the vendors lacked title. The trial court and first appellate court upheld the

SITA RAM BHAMAversusRAMVATAR BHAMA

2018 INSC 26023 March 2018Case Partly allowed

The father of the parties, a self‑acquired owner of a house and a shop, decided to divide his property on 25‑Oct‑1992 but died on 10‑Sep‑1993. The surviving brothers recorded a memorandum of settlement on 9‑Sep‑1994, signed by their mother and sisters, allocating the entire property between them. The plaintiff sued for

KEWAL KRISHANversusRAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC

2021 INSC 76522 November 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Kewal Krishan executed a power of attorney in favour of his brother Sudarshan Kumar, who then executed two sale deeds on 10 April 1981 transferring parts of the suit properties to his minor sons and wife for Rs 5,500 and Rs 6,875. The appellant sued for injunction and later amended the suits to seek a declaration that

GOPI @ GOVERDHANNATH (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusSRI BALLABH VYAS

2022 INSC 100022 September 2022Dismissed

The respondent, Ballabh Vyas, claimed ownership of a small shop (Mulgi) based on a registered sale deed dated 27 June 1985 and sought eviction of the appellants, who were tenants succeeding the original lessee Balraj. The appellants denied the respondent’s title, asserting that Balraj had purchased the property for Rs.

VINOD INFRA DEVELOPERS LTD.versusMAHAVEER LUNIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 77222 May 2025

Vinod Infra Developers Ltd., the owner of agricultural land, sued Mahaveer Lunia and others for declaration, possession and injunction after the respondents executed sale deeds despite the appellant's revocation of a power of attorney and board resolution. The respondents filed an Order VII Rule 11 application seeking

KHUSHI RAM & ORS.versusNAWAL SINGH & ORS.

2021 INSC 10622 February 2021Dismissed

The case concerned a consent decree dated 19‑08‑1991 that confirmed a family settlement whereby Smt. Jagno, a Hindu widow, transferred her half‑share in agricultural land to her nephews. The appellants challenged the decree on two grounds: (i) that the decree should have been registered under Section 17 of the Indian R

MATHAI SAMUEL AND ORS.versusEAPEN EAPEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2012 INSC 52621 November 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned whether the recitals in Exhibit A1, particularly item 1 of Schedule 8, created a testamentary disposition (a Will) or a settlement/gift that vested rights in the plaintiffs during the executants' lifetimes. The Supreme Court examined the nature of the composite document, distinguishing between test

ARUNKUMAR H SHAH HUFversusAVON ARCADE PREMISES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED & ORS.

2025 INSC 52421 April 2025Dismissed

The appellant, Arun H Shah HUF, challenged an ex parte certificate of deemed conveyance issued by the competent authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, which granted the first respondent cooperative society title to the entire larger plot subject to a condition that it execute a permanent lea

MOTURU NALINI KANTHversusGAINEDI KALIPRASAD (DEAD, THROUGH LRS.)

2023 INSC 100420 November 2023Dismissed

The appellant, Moturu Nalini Kanth, filed a suit as a minor claiming absolute title to the properties of the deceased Venkubayamma based on a registered will dated 03.05.1982 and a registered adoption deed dated 20.04.1982. The trial court upheld the suit, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the decision, holdin

APPAIYAversusANDIMUTHU @ THANGAPANDI & ORS.

2023 INSC 83520 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant purchased a two‑acre property in 1963 from Puliyankaladi, who had earlier acquired it through a registered sale deed (Exhibit A1) dated 27‑08‑1928. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the certified copy of Exhibit A1, a public document, was admissible as secondary evidence to prove the

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHERversusRAGINI NARAYAN AND ANOTHER

2016 INSC 89120 September 2016Dismissed

The case concerned a declaration suit filed by Ragini Narayan seeking to be recognized as the Donor Trustee of the B.M.S. Educational Trust after the death of her husband, the original Donor Trustee B.S. Narayan. The dispute centered on a 1994 amendment to the trust deed that provided for succession by the senior most

SHAKEENA & ANR.versusBANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 92220 August 2019Dismissed

The appellants had taken term loans from Bank of India which later became non‑performing, prompting the bank to invoke sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and take constructive possession of the mortgaged property. After a public auction on 19 December 2005, the highest bidder was issued a sale certificate on

M/S. SMS TEA ESTATES PVT. LTD.versusM/S. CHANDMARI TEA CO. PVT. LTD.

2011 INSC 50820 July 2011

The appellant, SMS Tea Estates, entered into a 30‑year lease deed with the respondent, Chandmari Tea Co., which contained Clause 35 mandating arbitration of disputes. The lease deed was not registered, though registration was compulsory, and it was also not duly stamped. The appellant sought appointment of an arbitrato

MUKESHversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR

2024 INSC 102619 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mukesh, filed a suit claiming ownership and long possession of a small parcel of land in Madhya Pradesh and obtained a compromise decree confirming his pre‑existing right. The decree was used to seek mutation of the land in his name, but the Collector of Stamps levied stamp duty on the basis of Article 2

MANSOOR SAHEB (DEAD) & ORS.versusSALIMA (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 92319 December 2024Dismissed

The case concerned a dispute over agricultural and house property owned by Sultan Saheb, who died in 1978. The plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to a one‑sixth share as heirs, while the defendants alleged that Sultan had partitioned the land among his sons during his lifetime and later gifted two portions to them.

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.versusM/S FERROUS ALLOY FORGINGS P LTD. & ORS.

2024 INSC 89019 November 2024Dismissed

The State of Punjab appealed a High Court order that directed the original sale certificate of auction‑purchased property to be handed over to the purchaser and that the stamp duty deposited by the purchaser be refunded. The dispute arose from the liquidation of M/s Punjab United Forge Ltd., where M/s Ferrous Alloy For

DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. AND ANR.versusDIRECTOR, T & C. PLANNING HARYANA AND ORS.

2010 INSC 79319 November 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, DLF Universal Ltd. and another, were licensed under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 to develop residential colonies and entered into private agreements with plot and flat buyers that included clauses for extension fees and maintenance charges. The Director, Town and Count

DECCAN PAPER MILLS CO. LTD.versusREGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES & ORS.

2020 INSC 49719 August 2020Dismissed

Deccan Paper Mills entered into a development agreement with Ashray, which was later assigned to Regency Mahavir Properties containing an arbitration clause. Deccan alleged fraud by a partner of Regency and filed a suit under the Specific Relief Act, seeking cancellation of the 2006 agreement and a deed of confirmation

KAUSHIK PREMKUMAR MISHRA & ANR.versusKANJI RAVARIA @ KANJI & ANR.

2024 INSC 54019 July 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased half of a 3.40‑hectare land from respondent No.2 in 1985, and a sale deed was executed on 02‑12‑1985 but remained unregistered due to stamp‑duty deficiency until 14‑06‑2011. Respondent No.2 later executed a second conveyance in 2010 in favour of respondent No.1 for the same land, leading the ap

AHMEDSAHEB (D) BY LRS. & ORS.versusSAYED ISMAIL

2012 INSC 29019 July 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed three suits (1974, 1977, 1980) for recovery of rent arrears covering October 1971 to November 1980. The trial court decreed in their favour and the decree was affirmed by a lower appellate court. The High Court set aside the decree on the sole ground that the rent deed (Exhibit‑69) was not register

GWALIOR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHERversusBHANU PRATAP SINGH

2023 INSC 39319 April 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The Gwalior Development Authority (GDA) invited bids in 1997 to lease a plot of 27,887.50 sq. meters under a transport city scheme. The highest bidder, Bhanu Pratap Singh, was allotted the land and required to pay the consideration in four instalments by October 1999, but he completed payment only in August 2005. The p

JUGAL KISHORE KHANNA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusSUDHIR KHANNA & ORS.

2024 INSC 22419 March 2024

The dispute involved two properties originally purchased by Roop Kishore Khanna (RKK) for the joint Hindu family of his father Tek Chand Khanna. After RKK's death, his brother Attar Chand Khanna's (ACK) heirs claimed a 50% share in the Kamla Nagar property, alleging it remained joint family property, while the appellan

GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS.versusANGREZ KAUR & ANR.

2020 INSC 31419 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Gurcharan Singh and others, obtained a decree on 9 January 1995 confirming their ownership of a suit land based on a registered will (dated 2 September 1986) and a family settlement (dated 15 June 1994) executed by the sole defendant, Bhajan Singh. Bhajan Singh had admitted these facts in his statement

B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR.versusD. SARALA & ANR.

2020 INSC 55618 September 2020Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the vendor, upholding the lower courts' decree that the vendee was entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement for the remaining 200 square yards of land after the vendor had already conveyed 100 square yards to a third party. The court found that the vendee h

CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATIONversusUNION OF INDIA

2020 INSC 49418 August 2020Dismissed

The Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed a writ petition seeking a fresh National Disaster Management Plan, specific minimum relief standards, and direction to use the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) for COVID-19, as well as to channel all contributions to the NDRF instead of the PM CARES Fund. The Court

RAMESH KUMAR & ANR.versusFURU RAM & ANR. ETC.

2011 INSC 59318 August 2011Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, brothers who co‑owned land, sued the respondents seeking a declaration that the arbitration awards and the subsequent court decrees granting title to the respondents were null and void because they were obtained through fraud and stamp‑duty evasion. The lower courts dismissed the suits on the ground tha

RAJ KUMARI AND OTHERSversusSURINDER PAL SHARMA

2019 INSC 138817 December 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Raj Kumari filed a partition suit claiming a one‑fourth share in a tenement allotted to her mother Suhagwanti. The respondent Surinder Pal Sharma defended the suit by producing a registered Will dated 02‑01‑1992, allegedly executed by Suhagwanti in his favour and attested by Ramesh Kumar (the appellant's

SIRI CHAND (DECEASED) THR. LRS.versusSURINDER SINGH

2020 INSC 43117 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, alleging arrears of rent and house tax. The Rent Controller held that the rent note was not signed by both parties, was not a lease requiring compulsory registration, and ordered eviction. The Appellate Cour

RATTAN SINGH & ORS.versusNIRMAL GILL & ORS. ETC.

2020 INSC 64116 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined civil suits filed by Joginder Kaur (deceased) represented by Nirmal Gill, seeking to declare a 1990 General Power of Attorney (GPA) and related sale deeds as fraudulent and void. The lower courts had held the documents genuine, but the High Court reversed that finding, declaring them forged.

PRAKASH & ORS.versusPHULAVATI & ORS.

2015 INSC 79316 October 2015Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (sections 6(1), 6(3), 6(5)) operates retrospectively. The appellant‑appellants argued that the amendment should not apply to a daughter whose father, a coparcener, died before the Act’s commencement, contending that the amendment is prospecti

ANANTHESH BHAKTA REPRESENTED BY MOTHER USHA A.BHAKTA & ORS.versusNAYANA S. BHAKTA & ORS.

2016 INSC 102615 November 2016Dismissed

The dispute concerned benefits under a retirement deed and a partnership deed of a beedi‑manufacturing firm, both containing arbitration clauses. The defendants filed an application under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking to refer the matter to arbitration, but did not attach the origin

P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR.versusSASIKALA & ORS.

2024 INSC 53315 July 2024Case Allowed

The plaintiffs entered into an agreement to sell a Bangalore property in 1981, paying an advance but failing to execute the sale deed within the stipulated three‑month period, citing a government restriction on registration. The defendants sent multiple notices demanding payment of the balance and eventually forfeited

THE CORRESPONDENCE, RBANMS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONversusB. GUNASHEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 49015 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The R.B.A.N.M.S. Educational Institution, a charitable trust in possession of a Bangalore property since 1905, was sued by respondents who claimed a right to prevent the institution from alienating the land based on an alleged 2018 agreement to sell and an advance cash payment of Rs.75 lakh. The institution filed an ap

SOBHA HIBISCUS CONDOMINIUMversusMANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR

2020 INSC 18914 February 2020Directions issued

The Sobha Hibiscus Condominium, a statutory body created under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against the managing director of Sobha Developers Ltd. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint, holding that the condominium was neit

CELIR LLPversusMR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

2024 INSC 97813 December 2024Directions issued

The Supreme Court considered contempt petitions filed by the successful auction purchaser (Celir LLP) against the original borrower, a subsequent transferee, and the bank, alleging wilful disobedience of the Court’s 21 September 2023 judgment that confirmed the 9th auction of a secured asset and directed issuance of a

RAMNATH AGRAWAL & ORS.versusFOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.

2020 INSC 39513 May 2020Dismissed

In 1976 the Food Corporation of India (FCI) invited offers to construct godowns on private land and subsequently lease them. The appellants' offer was accepted and an agreement dated 16‑12‑1976 required them to build six godowns, after which FCI would take possession on lease, subject to a completion certificate and sa

RAGHWENDRA SHARAN SINGHversusRAM PRASANNA SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS

2019 INSC 35713 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiff and his brother executed a registered gift deed in 1981 transferring land to the appellant, the appellant's son. Neither the plaintiff nor his brother contested the deed for about 22 years; the appellant filed a partition suit in 2001, in which the plaintiff was a defendant. In 2003 the plaintiff filed a

MANIK MAJUMDER AND OTHERSversusDIPAK KUMAR SAHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & OTHERS

2023 INSC 3413 January 2023Matter referred to larger bench

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title over land based on two sale deeds dated 3 September 1968 and 29 September 1968, the first executed by plaintiff 2 as an attorney of the original owner who allegedly executed a power of attorney (PoA) in East Pakistan. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed t

GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANR.versusCHAKIRI YANADI & ANR.

2011 INSC 75712 October 2011Appeal(s) allowed

A suit for partition of a Mitakshara coparcenary property was filed by a son (respondent No.1) against his father, brother and two sisters (the appellants). The trial court passed a preliminary decree in 1999, amended in 2003, determining the parties' shares, but a final decree had not been rendered. While the suit was

S. KALADEVIversusV.R. SOMASUNDARAM AND ORS.

2010 INSC 20512 April 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S. Kaladevi, filed a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement for an immovable property, seeking execution of a fresh sale deed and an injunction. The sale deed dated 27‑02‑2006 had been executed but could not be registered because of an attachment on the property, and the trial court refused to

DALIBEN VALJIBHAI & ORS.versusPRAJAPATI KODARBHAI KACHRABHAI & ANR.

2024 INSC 104911 December 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants filed a suit in 2017 seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated 04‑12‑2004, alleging fraud and claiming they only became aware of the deed on 31‑03‑2017 when a revenue notice was issued. The defendants moved to dismiss the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the thre

SURAJ LAMP & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2011 INSC 73911 October 2011Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the legality of transactions that rely on Sale Agreements, General Power of Attorney or Wills (collectively termed SA/GPA/Will transfers) as a mode of transferring immovable property. It observed that such arrangements are used to evade stamp duty, registration fees and to facilitate black‑mo

VINEETA SHARMAversusRAKESH SHARMA & ORS.

2020 INSC 48711 August 2020Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. It held that the amendment confers coparcenary status on daughters—whether born before or after the amendment—on and from 9 September 2005, giving them the same rights a

DLF LIMITEDversusMANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 82010 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The apartment owners of Silver Oaks Apartments filed a writ petition seeking to quash DLF Limited's declaration under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, alleging that the declaration omitted certain community and commercial facilities as "common areas and facilities". The High Court held that the owners were entitled

RASHEEDA KHATOON (D) THROUGH LRS.versusASHIQ ALI S/O LT. ABU MOHD (D) THROUGH LRS.

2014 INSC 70110 October 2014Dismissed

The case concerned an alleged oral gift (hiba) of a house by Abdul Haq, a Muslim, to Rasheeda Khatoon about seven years before his death. After Haq's death, his heirs sought possession, prompting Rasheeda to file a suit for declaration of ownership. The trial court and first appellate court held the oral gift valid, de

R. HEMALATHAversusKASHTHURI

2023 INSC 33610 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant (original defendant) challenged the High Court's order that an unregistered Agreement to Sell, executed on 10‑09‑2013, could be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance. The dispute centered on whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 2012, which made agreements to sell immovable property of R

GARWARE WALL ROPES LTD.versusCOASTAL MARINE CONSTRUCTIONS & ENGINEERING LTD.

2019 INSC 51110 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. entered into a sub‑contract with Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd. that contained an arbitration clause but the sub‑contract was not stamped. When the respondent filed a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator, the Bo

MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.versusKARAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. & ORS.

2024 INSC 4919 July 2024Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a registered agreement for sale of 2.90 acres of land executed in 1981, which the plaintiffs sought to enforce by specific performance. The defendants argued that the agreement was a sham, forged, and that they were bona‑fide purchasers without notice of the agreement. The Supreme Court held that Sec

STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.versusMANOJ KUMAR

2010 INSC 1359 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Haryana filed an appeal after the High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, set aside the District Collector’s order directing Manoj Kumar to pay differential stamp duty on a commercial plot that had been sold at a price lower than the circle rate. The sale deed was executed fo

T.G. ASHOK KUMARversusGOVINDAMMAL AND ANR.

2010 INSC 8638 December 2010Case Partly allowed

The appellant, T.G. Ashok Kumar, purchased a plot from the second respondent in 1990, unaware of a pending partition suit filed by the first respondent. The partition suit, which was not collusive, was decreed in 1994 and finally divided the property such that three‑quarters went to the first respondent and one‑quarter

YELLAPU UMA MAHESWARI &ANR.versusBUDDHA JAGADHEESWARARAO & ORS.

2015 INSC 7558 October 2015Case Partly allowed

In a partition suit, the defendants sought to introduce two unregistered documents (Exhibit B‑21, a deed of memorandum, and Exhibit B‑22, an agreement) to prove the division of property. The trial court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court held the documents inadmissible, reasoning that they were compulsorily registerable

D.R. RATHNA MURTHYversusRAMAPPA

2010 INSC 6968 October 2010Dismissed

The appellant purchased a plot of land on 23 April 1986 and sold it the next day to the respondent by a registered sale deed. In 1991-92 the appellant claimed the deed was conditional, asserting that the word "Avadhi" and a clause allowing repurchase within ten years had been inserted after execution. The trial court,

HAR NARAIN (DEAD) BY LRS.versusMAM CHAND (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

2010 INSC 7008 October 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representatives of the deceased Har Narain, entered into an agreement for sale of eight kanals of land with the owner, Mam Chand, who later executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 2‑6 on 2 August 1971. The deed was registered on 3 September 1971, after the appellant had filed a suit for s

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.versusSMT. KALLO BAI

2017 INSC 12878 May 2017Dismissed

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai, the owner of a tractor and trolley used to transport teak without a permit was seized and a confiscation order was made under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. The lower courts held that confiscation could not occur until the accused’s g

S. NAGARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.versusB.R. VASUDEVA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC.

2010 INSC 888 February 2010Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the Mysore Inam Abolition Act, 1954, where two inamdars applied for occupancy registration of land that the State had meanwhile granted to a teachers' association (Sangha) for house sites. The inamdars settled their suit with the Sangha, withdrew their claim, and later

AMUDHAVALI & ORS.versusP. RUKUMANI & ORS.

2021 INSC 8327 December 2021Disposed off

The appellants bought a 3.46‑cent land parcel from the original owners (respondents 1‑4) through a registered sale deed dated 09‑03‑2005, executed by a power of attorney holder (respondent 7). The original owners later executed a cancellation deed on the same date, got it registered on 20‑09‑2007, and filed a civil sui

SAMIULLAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 12927 November 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants challenged the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amendments that introduced sub‑rules (xvii) and (xviii) to Rule 19, which made the production of jamabandi or holding‑allotment proof a condition precedent for registering sale or gift documents. The High Court of Patna dismissed the writ petitions, holding t

V. PRABHAKARAversusBASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. & ANR.

2021 INSC 6267 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought declaration and possession of a house based on a registered Will (Exhibit P4) executed by the deceased in his favour, which was attested by his brother and witnessed by his sister. The respondents admitted the existence of Exhibit P4 but contested it by producing an unregistered Will (Exhibit D1) a

OMPRAKASHversusLAXMINARAYAN & ORS.

2013 INSC 6857 October 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance, possession and injunction based on an agreement to sell dated 27 December 2000, which recited that physical possession of the land had been handed over to them. The defendants denied the execution of the agreement and the delivery of possession. The trial court held

MAHNOOR FATIMA IMRAN & ORS.versusM/S VISWESWARA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. & ORS.

2025 INSC 6467 May 2025Disposed off

The dispute concerned 53 acres of land in Survey No.83/2, claimed by the original owners (appellants) and by M/s Visweswara Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. (respondents) who relied on sale agreements dated 19 March 1982 that were never registered. The appellants argued that the unregistered agreements could not convey title an

KARAN KAPOORversusMADHURI KUMAR

2022 INSC 6616 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Karan Kapoor, was a tenant of a residential property owned by the respondent, Madhuri Kumar, under lease agreements from 2011 to 2014. After the lease expired, the appellant stopped paying rent and the respondent filed a suit for possession, rent, and mesne profits. The appellant claimed that subsequent

RIPUDAMAN SINGHversusTIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND

2021 INSC 3206 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and respondent, brothers and heirs of the deceased, were involved in a suit for possession of land based on a will. During the suit, the parties reached a compromise that allocated additional land not originally in dispute, resulting in a compromise decree. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether s

K. GOPIversusTHE SUB-REGISTRAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 4626 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, K. Gopi, sought registration of a sale deed executed by Jayaraman Mudaliyar, but the Sub‑Registrar refused on the ground that the vendor’s title was not established. The High Court upheld the refusal, relying on Rule 55A(i) of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, and dismissed the appellant’s writ petition

CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusM/S. V.K. TRADERS AND OTHERS

2020 INSC 2866 March 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) blacklisted several rice mills for supplying sub‑standard rice and barred them from receiving paddy for custom milling. To evade the ban, the mill owners executed unregistered lease deeds transferring the mills to new partnership or proprietorship firms, which then applied for paddy

THARAMMEL PEETHAMBARAN AND ANOTHERversusT. USHAKRISHNAN AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 1346 February 2026Dismissed

The plaintiff, sister of the first defendant, executed a limited Power of Attorney (PoA) on 31 July 1998, which she later cancelled after learning that the first defendant had used it to sell her immovable properties to the second and third defendants on 15 March 2007. The plaintiff alleged that the PoA presented by th

PHOOL PATTI AND ANR.versusRAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.

2015 INSC 46 January 2015Case Partly allowed

The dispute concerned 52 kanals of land owned by Bhagwana, of which 20 kanals were self‑acquired and 32 kanals were ancestral. Bhagwana, by a consent decree dated 24 November 1980, transferred the entire property to his nephew Ram Singh, acknowledging a family settlement for the ancestral portion. The daughters of Bhag

ADARSH SAHKARI GRIH NIRMAN SWAWLAMBI SOCIETY LTD.versusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

2025 INSC 13895 December 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a cooperative society registered under the Jharkhand Self‑Supporting Cooperative Societies Act, sought exemption from stamp duty on a land transfer to its members under Section 9A of the Stamp (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1988. The State, through a memorandum issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Re

SHYAM LALversusDEEPA DASS CHELA RAM CHELA GARIB DASS

2016 INSC 4965 July 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Shyam Lal held an agricultural lease from 29 May 1996 to 28 May 2005, but the lease was not registered. After the lease expired he continued to occupy the land and filed a suit for injunction to restrain the landlord from ousting him. The landlord cross‑claimed a mandatory injunction for vacation, arguing that the tena

SUBRAYA M.N.versusVITTALA M.N. & ORS.

2016 INSC 4945 July 2016Case Partly allowed

The suit sought partition of three parcels of land that were part of the joint family of the deceased Narayana. The defendant claimed that the first two parcels had been relinquished by the plaintiffs through a village panchayat resolution and receipts, while the third parcel was his self‑acquired property. The trial c

HAFEEZA BIBI & ORS.versusSHAIKH FARID (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS

2011 INSC 3575 May 2011Appeal(s) allowed

In a partition suit governed by Sunni law, the defendant claimed that his father had gifted him immovable property by a written hiba deed dated 5‑2‑1968 and that the deed, though unregistered, was valid. The trial court held the gift valid, but the High Court set it aside on the ground that an instrument of gift of imm

MOHAMMADE YUSUF & ORS.versusRAJKUMAR & ORS.

2020 INSC 1335 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit in 1984 for a 7‑biswa parcel of land and a compromise decree was passed on 4 October 1985 granting them title to that parcel. In a later suit filed in 1998, the respondents sought an injunction over the same land and, during trial, the appellant attempted to introduce the 1985 compromise decr

OM PRAKASH (DEAD) TH. HIS LRS.versusSHANTI DEVI & ORS.

2015 INSC 15 January 2015Dismissed

The appellant claimed ownership of a disputed immovable property on the basis of a registered Gift Deed dated 15‑05‑1970, asserting that Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would give a presumption of proper execution because the deed was over thirty years old. The trial court, and subsequently the High Court, rejecte

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusBALBIR SINGH MAINI

2017 INSC 10024 October 2017Dismissed

The respondents, members of a cooperative housing society, entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with developers to develop 21.2 acres of land. Only two instalments were paid and 7.7 acres were conveyed, for which capital gains tax was paid. The Assessing Officer and the ITAT treated the unreceived considera

AMEER MINHAJversusDIERDRE ELIZABETH (WRIGHT) ISSAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5784 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a 2003 agreement to sell land, relying on an unregistered sale deed, a registered power of attorney, and an earlier unregistered 1995 agreement. The respondents challenged the admissibility of these documents, arguing that the 2003 deed required registration under

DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) THROUGH LRSversusSHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE & ORS

2023 INSC 4914 May 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant sought possession of a 3‑acre agricultural field based on a registered sale deed dated 21‑04‑1979. The defendants argued that the deed was a sham, executed as collateral for a money‑lending transaction, and that the sale violated the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Ac

ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITEDversusS. P. VELAYUTHAM & ORS

2022 INSC 5094 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd., challenged the registration of a sale deed executed by S.P. Velayutham in favour of his son, arguing that the Sub‑Registrar had failed to verify that the power of attorney (PoA) presented did not authorize a sale. The High Court’s Division Bench set aside the Si

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD.versusCENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

2025 INSC 2434 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Cosmos Co. Operative Bank Ltd. (appellant) challenged a High Court order that held Central Bank of India (respondent No.1) had the first charge over a flat mortgaged by the original borrowers. Both banks had received security documents: the appellant bank held the share certificate of ownership, while the responden

K. S. VARGHESE & ORS.versusST. PETERS & PAULS SYRIAN ORTH. & ORS.

2017 INSC 5803 July 2017Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals concerning the administration of Parish Churches within the Malankara Church, which has been divided between the Patriarch faction and the Catholicos faction. The core dispute was whether the 1934 Constitution of the Malankara Church or individual Udampady agreements (such as those f

SHABBIR MOHAMMAD SAYEDversusMRS. NOOR JEHAN MUSHTER SHAIKH & ORS.

2022 INSC 7842 August 2022Dismissed

The plaintiff obtained a decree declaring her as tenant of a premises in Mumbai and ordered the landlord to hand over possession. The appellant, Shabbir Mohammad Sayed, claimed he had acquired leasehold rights from the alleged lawful tenant and also from the landlord on 24 January 2014, and sought execution of the decr

SHYAM NARAYAN PRASADversusKRISHNA PRASAD AND ORS.

2018 INSC 5562 July 2018Dismissed

The case concerned a partition of ancestral Hindu Mitakshara property of Gopalji Prasad among his sons, after which the share allotted to defendant No.2 was claimed to be ancestral for his sons and grandson. The plaintiffs sought to set aside an exchange deed executed between defendant No.1 and No.2, arguing that it in

RAJNI SANGHIversusWESTERN INDIAN STATE MOTORS LTD. & ORS.

2015 INSC 8741 December 2015Disposed off

The case involved four brothers who owned a family business and entered into an arbitration agreement in 1984 to partition the business. An arbitrator issued an award in 1987, but subsequent litigation in the Bombay, Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts resulted in family settlement schemes in 1994 and an amended settlement

SHAKEEL AHMEDversusSYED AKHLAQ HUSSAIN

2023 INSC 10161 November 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a suit for possession and mesne profits of a property relying on an unregistered power of attorney, agreement to sell, affidavit and will, while the appellant, who was in possession, claimed title through an oral gift (Hiba) from his brother. The trial court decreed possession in favour of the resp

KORUKONDA CHALAPATHI RAO & ANR.versusKORUKONDA ANNAPURNA SAMPATH KUMAR

2021 INSC 5861 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a partition of family property where the respondent sought a declaration of title and eviction of the appellants. The appellants relied on a family settlement document (Khararunama) dated 15‑04‑1986 and a receipt of Rs.2,00,000 as evidence of the parties' past arrangements. The trial court admitt

SANTOSH DEVIversusSUNDER

2025 INSC 6271 May 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Santosh Devi, filed a suit in 2012 seeking cancellation of a sale deed and related mutation, alleging that the deed was obtained through fraud. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation, a decision affirmed by the first appellate court and the High Court. The petitioner contended th

THULASIDHARA & ANOTHERversusNARAYANAPPA & OTHERS

2019 INSC 6031 May 2019Disposed off

The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, claiming ownership of a property based on a registered sale deed. The defendants contended that the property had become part of a joint family and that the sale deed was merely a security instrument, not an operative transfer, and th

JAGDISH CHAND SHARMAversusNARAIN SINGH SAINI (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS. & ORS.

2015 INSC 3761 May 2015Dismissed

The appellant sought a Letter of Administration on the basis of a Will dated 22‑10‑1973, allegedly executed by the deceased Nathu Singh in favour of the appellant. The trial court held the Will validly executed and granted the administration, but the High Court set aside that order, finding the Will not proved under Se

ADDL.DISTT.SUB-REGISTRAR SILIGURIversusPAWAN KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 2971 May 2013Appeal(s) allowed

A partition suit filed in 1999 was compromised in 2001 and the decree was presented for registration in 2007. The trial court directed the Additional District Sub‑Registrar, Siliguri to register the partition deed based on the stamp duty calculated from the suit valuation of Rs.50 lakh. The registrar objected, stating

DANAMMA @ SUMAN SURPUR & ANR.versusAMAR AND ORS.

2018 INSC 841 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Gurulingappa Savadi died in 2001 leaving a widow, two sons and two daughters (the appellants). A partition suit was filed in 2002 by one son, Amar, seeking a share of the joint family property. The trial court (decree 2007) and the Karnataka High Court denied the daughters any share, holding they were not coparceners b

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search