Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

'No Duty to Verify Title or Genuineness of Documents: Madras High Court Quashes Final Report Against Sub Registrar

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, presided over by Justice R. Hemalatha, has quashed the final report against M. Suriya Prabha, a Sub Registrar, in the case of Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3643 of 2021. The court observed that there is no legal obligation on registering officers to verify the title or authenticity of documents presented for registration.

The court dealt extensively with the duties of registering officers under Section 52 of the Registration Act, 1908. The ruling clarified that these officials are not required to verify the title or ownership of properties during the registration process.

The case involved allegations of criminal conspiracy in property registration. M. Suriya Prabha, the petitioner and a Sub Registrar, was accused of conspiring in the registration of a fraudulent settlement deed, along with other accused, under IPC sections 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 read with 120(b).

Justice Hemalatha meticulously analyzed Section 52 of the Registration Act, stating, "The Registration Act does not impose a duty on registering officers to verify the title or ownership of properties during registration." The court emphasized that a Sub Registrar’s role is to register documents presented with proper stamp duty and registration charges, without delving into the genuineness of the documents.

Further, the court found no specific allegations or substantive evidence against the petitioner regarding his involvement in any conspiracy to fabricate documents. This led to the conclusion that the final report filed against him was unsustainable.

The High Court quashed the final report against M. Suriya Prabha in C.C.No.435 of 2019. The decision was based on the absence of a legal duty on the part of the Sub Registrar to verify documents and the lack of specific allegations or evidence against the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 04.03.2024.

M.Suriya Prabha v. State & Anr,

Similar News