‘Registration of sale settlement no bar to promote property to 3rd occasion’

‘Registration of sale agreement no bar to sell property to third party’

Registration of a sale settlement, expressing willingness to promote a property to a selected individual on receiving full fee in future, is not going to be a bar for the property proprietor to go forward and promote or switch the property to a 3rd occasion with out getting the sale settlement annulled via a civil court docket decree, the Madras Excessive Court docket has dominated.

A Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and N. Sathish Kumar held that the legislation doesn’t empower Registration Division officers to insist upon court docket orders annulling sale agreements, if there have been any, earlier than registering sale deeds, reward deeds, settlement deeds or some other property switch doc executed by the proprietor.

‘Caveat emptor’

Answering a reference made to them by a single choose of the Excessive Court docket, the Division Bench mentioned: “It’s for the client or subsequent transferee to make an inexpensive enquiry. Doctrine of caveat emptor (let the client beware) can even apply to each switch. It’s for them to confirm the title of the property by making obligatory enquiry.”

The judges went on to state: “At any occasion, subsequent switch will at all times be topic to rights already created. Due to this fact, it can’t be mentioned that merely as a result of settlement on the market is registered, subsequent switch is prohibited and can’t be registered with out acquiring a decree of declaration that such settlement is void.

“We maintain that Registrar has no proper to refuse to register the following doc on the premise that settlement of sale was already registered in respect of identical property.”

Particular instances

Authoring the decision, Justice Kumar identified that the Registration Act of 1908 empowers the Registration Division officers to refuse registration of a doc solely in restricted variety of circumstances and doesn’t accord them any omnibus energy.

Part 19 of the Act states that the officers might refuse to just accept a doc for registration if it was in a language which they don’t perceive or which was not generally used within the district except it was accompanied by a real translation.

Equally, Part 20 empowers them to refuse to just accept paperwork with unattested alterations, interlineations, blanks or erasures. Additional, Part 21 states {that a} Registrar might refuse to just accept a doc if the outline of the property was not enough to determine it. “A mixed studying of Sections 19 to 21 provides energy to refuse the doc solely to set issues proper. In any other case, the Registrar has no different go besides to register the doc,” the Bench mentioned.

Supply hyperlink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *