<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (8) TMI 1605 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469860</link>
    <description>Under the Registration Act, 1908, a registering authority&#039;s role is administrative and, absent an express statutory rule, does not extend to adjudicating title disputes or cancelling a registered instrument merely because an earlier transfer is alleged to be unilateral or void. The majority noted that comparable State rules requiring bilateral execution and notice were absent, and declined writ interference with the High Court&#039;s refusal of relief, while stating that the broader validity of unilateral cancellation of registered deeds should be examined by a larger Bench. The dissent would have treated a unilateral extinguishment deed as void ab initio and quashed the later conveyances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 16:06:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=910546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1605 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469860</link>
      <description>Under the Registration Act, 1908, a registering authority&#039;s role is administrative and, absent an express statutory rule, does not extend to adjudicating title disputes or cancelling a registered instrument merely because an earlier transfer is alleged to be unilateral or void. The majority noted that comparable State rules requiring bilateral execution and notice were absent, and declined writ interference with the High Court&#039;s refusal of relief, while stating that the broader validity of unilateral cancellation of registered deeds should be examined by a larger Bench. The dissent would have treated a unilateral extinguishment deed as void ab initio and quashed the later conveyances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469860</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>