India Law Update
WORLD PRACTICE
Asia  Europe  USA  UK  Middle East  Africa

Registering Authority Cannot Cancel/Set Aside an Already Registered Sale Deed: Allahabad High Court

The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Kusum Lata vs. State of UP has held that a registered sale deed cannot be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned even on the count of impersonation/ fraud.

This Larger Bench has been constituted under the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice on basis of the order dated 22nd May 2017 passed in Writ-C No. 2973 of 2016 in the matter of Kusum Lata Vs State of U.P.

That the larger Bench Constituted with Hon'ble Govind Mathur J. Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya) J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji J.

The Division Bench under the order dated 22nd May2017 referred following questions for adjudication by Larger Bench. The larger Bench has decided the following questions according to the merit of the case as well as law being in force

  1. "Whether after a sale deed has been registered, the Assistant Registrar has any authority of law to cancel the registered sale deed under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 even if allegation of impersonation/fraud are made?
  2. Whether the allegations of fraud are essentially, an allegation of fact which need examination of oral or documentary evidence and can be adjudicated on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties before competent civil court?
  3. Whether the judgment in the case of Raj Kumari (supra) or or the judgment in the case of Radhey Shyam Arora (supra) lays down the correct law?"

That the Division Bench relied upon the judgement Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Yanalla Malleswari Vs. Ananthalu Sayamma, AIR 2007 (AP) 57 held that "once incumbents who have proceeded to execute the sale deed, have no authority to execute sale deed then rightful order has been passed and accordingly in the facts of the case, there is no occasion for this Court to take a different or contrary view as any interference would subscribe void transactions.". Being in absolute agreement with the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Krishna Kumar Saxena and another (supra),The Court adopt the reasoning given in the case therein. The Larger Bench stated that the Division Bench while settling the ratio also relied upon land mark judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 10 SCC 761, wherein the Full Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yanalla Malleswari Vs. Ananthalu Sayamma (supra) too was considered. The Apex Court held that the registering authority could not decide whether the document which was executed by a person who had title as was recited in the given instrument. The authority, as such, was not expected to decide the title/right of the parties to the agreement nor was expected to examine the document to ascertain whether the same was legal and permissible in law or undertake any analysis thereof. If the document registered by the registering authority was illegal or if there was any irregularity then the course to question that was by invoking appropriate proceedings before a Civil Court.

Court stated and arrived at the conclusion that once a sale deed has been registered, the registering authority is having no power or authority under the Act, 1908 to cancel the registration, even if an allegation of impersonation/fraud is alleged.

Wife Entitle to Know Husband's Salary Upholding CIC Order : Madhya Pradesh High Court

That the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on a order dated 15TH May 2018 in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs. BSNL Limited and others arising out of the W.A. 170/2015 has stated that wife entitle to know Husband's Salary upholding CIC order.

Pawan Kumar Jain and his wife are in a estranged relationship. Matrimonial disputes between them are pending in the Courts. It is stated that wife Smt. Sunita Jain is getting a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as maintenance from her husband. It is also stated fact that the wife is an Advocate but she is not practicing. The husband is a very high officer in the Telecommunication Department and it is alleged that he is drawing salary more than Rs. 2,25,000/- per month. In her maintenance case, she filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for a direction to the Husband to submit his payslip for determination of proper maintenance amount, which was rejected by the trial Court. Then, she filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") to seek the salary details of the husband. The application was rejected. Matter travelled up to the Central Information Commission and the Central Information Commission vide order dated 27th July 2007 asked the Central Public Information Officer, BSNL, unit of BSNL to furnish the details of monthly remuneration. This order of the Central Information Commission was challenged in writ petition by Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain respondent No.1 as well as by the BSNL.

The CIC order. The single bench set aside the CIC order referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. The husband, and his employer, BSNL, approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging Central Information Co. In the said case, the apex court had held copies of all memos, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, assets, income tax returns, details of gifts received etc. by a public servant are personal information as defined in Clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

The issue before the bench of Justice SK Seth and Justice Nandita Dubey in the writ appeal filed by the wife was whether the information sought is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act or it is covered by Section 4(1)(b)(x) which obliges the public authorities to display on public domain the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees.

However, the bench observed: While dealing with the Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the appellant and the respondent No.1 are husband and wife and as a wife she is entitled to know what remuneration the husband is getting.

2 June 2018
In this issue:
 
F-116
Lajpat Nagar-1
New Delhi - 110 024, India
Ph: +91-11-29814816 / 29814817
Fax: +91-11-29815116
E: newdelhi@indiajuris.com
www.indiajuris.com
 
 
 
International Desks
 
Asia & Australia
M.P.Mehani
asia@indiajuris.com
 
Americas
Shivkumar Idnani
americas@indiajuris.com
 
UK & Europe
Sameer Rastogi
europe@indiajuris.com
 
Africa
Rahul Gupta
africa@indiajuris.com
 
Middle East
Dinesh Sabharwal
middleast@indiajuris.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INDIA JURIS I www.indiajuris.com I Presentation, Awards & Rankings I Publications I Disclaimer