By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
ApniLawApniLawApniLaw
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Reading: Supreme Court Ruling: Vendor Cannot Re-Sell Property Pending Registration
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
ApniLawApniLaw
Font ResizerAa
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court
  • Acts
  • Documentation
  • BNSS
  • Home
  • Law Forum
  • Find Lawyers
  • Legal Services
  • Legal News
  • Legal Jobs
  • Legal Articles
    • Documentation
    • Marriage and Divorce
    • Land Dispute & Will
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Supreme Court
    • High Court
  • Bare Acts
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • CrPC
    • DPDP
    • Hindu Marriage Act
    • IPC
    • POCSO
Have an existing account? Sign In
Follow US
  • Advertise
© 2022 Foxiz News Network. Ruby Design Company. All Rights Reserved.
ApniLaw > Blog > News > Supreme Court Ruling: Vendor Cannot Re-Sell Property Pending Registration
News

Supreme Court Ruling: Vendor Cannot Re-Sell Property Pending Registration

Amna Kabeer
Last updated: December 17, 2024 8:40 pm
Amna Kabeer
12 months ago
Share
Supreme Court Ruling: Vendor Cannot Re-Sell Property Pending Registration
Supreme Court Ruling: Vendor Cannot Re-Sell Property Pending Registration
SHARE

In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that a vendor who has executed a sale deed cannot execute another deed for the same property merely because the initial deed is pending registration. The Court emphasised that once a deed is executed, the vendor forfeits all rights over the property, regardless of the registration status.

Contents
More insightCourt’s Findings:

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, stated: 

“The issue of registration of a document is with the State. Which, requires compulsory registration of documents so that it is not deprived of revenue by way of stamp duty payable. 

The purchaser may have no means to pay stamp duty or exorbitant demand of stamp duty. It is made by the registering authority. The purchaser is unable to pay at that time. But, he remains satisfied with the fact that the vendor has fairly and duly executed the sale deed. This was presented it for registration and put him in possession of the purchased property which he is peacefully enjoying. He is always at liberty to pay the deficiency of stamp duty at any point of time. The document presented for registration will remain with the Registering Authority. This is till such time, the deficiency is removed.

More insight

However, this pendency of registration on account of deficiency cannot endure any benefit to the vendor, who has already eliminated all his rights by executing the sale deed after receiving the sale consideration. He cannot become the owner of the transferred land merely because the document of sale is pending for registration.

It is the purchaser who cannot produce such document which is pending registration with respect to the immovable property in evidence before the Court of law as the same would be inadmissible in view of statutory provision contained in the TP Act as also the Act, 1908.”

The Court clarified that the only consequence of non-registration is that the purchaser cannot use the deed as evidence due to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the Registration Act, 1908. The second sale deed executed by the vendor while the first was pending registration is deemed void.

Case Background:

The case involved a property transaction from 1985, where Respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant and his minor brother, which remained unregistered due to stamp duty issues. In 2010, Respondent No. 2 executed another deed for the same property to Respondent No. 1. The appellants, upon discovering this, registered their deed in 2011 and filed a suit against Respondent No. 1 for the cancellation of the second deed.

Court’s Findings:

The Supreme Court examined several issues, including:

  1. Whether Respondent No. 2 received sale consideration and executed the sale deed in 1985.
  2. The validity of the 1985 deed given the appellants’ minority.
  3. Whether Respondent No. 1 was a bona fide purchaser.

The Court found that the 1985 deed was validly executed, endorsed by the Sub-Registrar, and impounded for non-payment of stamp duty, which was later rectified. Despite the appellants being minors, the Court noted that their mother, as their natural guardian, represented them in the transaction.

Bona Fide Purchaser Doctrine

The Court ruled that a subsequent purchaser cannot be deemed a bona fide purchaser if the vendor had already transferred rights via a prior sale deed. The vendor’s deceitful conduct and pre-existing transfer nullify any protection for the subsequent purchaser.

The Supreme Court allowed the appellants’ appeal, cancelled the second sale deed, and imposed a Rs. 10 lakh exemplary cost on the respondents. The Court highlighted the importance of upholding the trust in the legal system. Additionally, ensuring that the law aids those wronged by deceitful practices in property transactions.

You Might Also Like

Timely Maintenance To Wife Is a Legal Right to Dignity, Not a Favor: Delhi High Court

Consensual Love Among Teenagers Should Not Be Criminalized Under POCSO: Delhi HC

Delhi Court Grants Bail To Activist Medha Patkar In Defamation Case Filed By Lieutenant Governor VK Saxena

Non-Bailable Warrants Barred In Maintenance Cases Under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Madras High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Private Contractors In Sand Mining Case

Share This Article
Facebook Email Print
Previous Article Bombay High Court Ruling: Association With Dawood Ibrahim Not Punishable Under UAPA Bombay High Court Ruling: Association With Dawood Ibrahim Not Punishable Under UAPA
Next Article Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ashish Mishra In Lakhimpur Kheri Violence Case
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
XFollow
InstagramFollow
YoutubeSubscribe

Weekly Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Popular News
High Court of Orissa
Marriage and DivorceNewsOrissa High Court

Only Family Court Can Decide Marital Status Disputes: Orissa HC

Amna Kabeer
By Amna Kabeer
4 months ago
Blood-Stained Weapon Not Enough for Murder Conviction: SC
Supreme Court PIL Seeks Indian Army Deployment For Landslide Rescue On NH 66 In Karnataka
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL For Online Access To Digitised Judicial Records
Ex-Servicemen Can Claim Concession If Not Recruited At Application Date: Madras High Court
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
Ad imageAd image

Your one-stop destination for legal news, articles, queries, and a directory of lawyers in India – all under one roof at ApniLaw.

Stay Updated

  • BNSS
  • News
  • Documentation
  • Acts
  • Supreme Court
  • High Court

Information

  • ApniLaw Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service

Advertise

  • Advertise with us
  • Newsletters
  • Deal

Find Us on Socials

ApniLawApniLaw
Follow US
© ApniLaw 2025. All Rights Reserved.
bg-n
Join Us!
Subscribe to our newsletter and never miss our latest news, podcasts etc..
Zero spam, Unsubscribe at any time.

More Interesting News

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Humayun Merchant In Money Laundering Case

Trial of Corruption Cases: How the Legal Process Works (Section 4 & 5)

How To File A Case Under The Prevention Of Corruption Act?

Can You Be Punished for Trying to Influence a Government Official under Prevention of Corruption Act? (Section 9 & 10)

login
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?