- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madras High Court: The settlement property deed if registered fraudulently shall stand void
Madras High Court: The settlement of property deed if registered fraudulently shall stand void The Madras High Court passed first-of-its-kind order by declaring a fraudulently registered settlement deed of a property as void. The Court while also directed the sub-registrar office to register the court order so that such fraud entries in the future are reversed automatically. Currently there...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Madras High Court: The settlement of property deed if registered fraudulently shall stand void
The Madras High Court passed first-of-its-kind order by declaring a fraudulently registered settlement deed of a property as void. The Court while also directed the sub-registrar office to register the court order so that such fraud entries in the future are reversed automatically.
Currently there are no provisions in the Registration Act that enable authorities to cancel entries made in the property record.
The court was hearing a batch of petitions moved by owners of 3.11 acres of land falling under the Alandur sub-registrar office.
The petitioners sought a court direction to the sub-registrar office to remove the fraudulent entry made in the property record. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had been fighting various civil suits for the ownership of the said property since 1979 and succeeded in every suit.
The petitioners challenged the settlement deed registered in connection with the property owned by them, by a third party. The third party executed a settlement deed in their favor defying the lower courts' orders.
Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that there are no provisions in the Registration Act that enable officials to cancel fraudulent documents. "Usually, in such situations, expecting the parties to go before the civil court every time an illegal document is registered, makes it almost impossible for the real owner to deal with his own property."
"It is a known factor that proceedings initiated before the civil court does not come to an end that quickly... it's a long-drawn journey," the judge added.