Latest news with #TheSupremeCourt
News18
5 days ago
- Business
- News18
Mere Registered Sale Deed Won't Confer Ownership: Supreme Court
Last Updated: The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer The Supreme Court has ruled that a registered sale deed alone does not confer ownership of a property. A bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran observed in a case that while the title was claimed to have been validly obtained through instruments of conveyance, the vendor's title was questionable. Furthermore, actual possession had not been proven. The court was addressing an appeal by Mahinoor Fatima Imran and others against the Telangana High Court's division bench judgment that dismissed their appeal against a single judge's order. The appellants, legal representatives of the original owners/declarants, asserted their possession and ownership. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, claimed their possession based on unchallenged title deeds. The appellants argued that the sale agreement from March 19, 1982, and the executed title deeds could not confer any title to the vendees, as the vendor did not have valid title. The respondents, who were the writ petitioners, based their claims on the decision in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt Ltd Vs State of Haryana & Anr (2012). The bench, however, said, 'The decision has been cited to argue that the title deeds; registered instruments of conveyance, are to be deemed valid unless set aside or declared void by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. There is no such dictum in the said decision wherein a division bench of this court was concerned with conveyances made on the strength of agreements of sale, General Power of Attorney and Wills." The court highlighted issues concerning the avoidance of proper deed execution and registration as modes of freehold immovable property transfer, particularly in light of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act. The practice of using Power of Attorney sales with sale agreements and wills, instead of proper deeds of conveyance upon full consideration receipt, was criticised. The court stressed that while document registration informs the public that a document has been executed, it does not confer unimpeachable validity on all registered documents. The bench noted that the writ petitioners claimed proper conveyances through registered sale deeds from Bhavana Society, based on an unregistered agreement from 1982, which cannot be recognised as a valid transfer method. The bench pointed out, 'An instrument of conveyance is compulsorily registrable as required under the Registration Act. Section 23 prescribes four-months' time for presenting a document for registration from the date of its execution. Section 24 provides that if there are several persons executing a document at different times, such document may be presented for registration or re-registration within four. months from the date of such execution." The court concluded that the original and revalidated 1982 agreement could not result in a valid title, even if the subsequent instrument was registered. In the case, the single judge did not decide the title but raised valid suspicion regarding the vendor's title in the deed of conveyance. The writ petitioners' claim was based on a sale agreement, which is not a proper deed of conveyance, especially as it was not a registered document. The bench stated that the title is prima facie suspect, disqualifying the petitioners from claiming rightful possession, which was also unproven. The dispute involved approximately 53 acres of prime land in Raidurg Panmaktha, Telangana, claimed based on registered sale deeds executed by M/s Bhavana Cooperative Housing Society. The court, while restoring the single judge's judgment, held that Bhavana Society had no valid or legal title to transfer, making the sale deeds void. view comments First Published: July 15, 2025, 03:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Economic Times
5 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
SC slams cartoonist Hemant Malviya over ‘immature' post targeting PM Modi and RSS
(You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Monday chided Indore-based cartoonist Hemant Malviya for his "immature" cartoon that portrayed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and RSS in an "undignified" manner.A bench of justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar termed Malviya's conduct as "inflammatory" and "immature". The development took place during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea filed by the cartoonist, who moved SC for relief after his plea was dismissed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on July 8."Still no maturity in him. It is indeed inflammatory," justice Dhulia verbally remarked. The court posted the matter for hearing on was booked in May this year over the Facebook post on the complaint of an RSS member. The cartoonist stands accused of offences under sections 196 (promoting enmity between different groups), 299 (insulting religion or religious beliefs), 302 (act with intent to wound religious feelings), 352 (insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 353 (mischief) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 67A of the Information Technology Act.
Epoch Times
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Facilitate Return of Wrongfully Deported Guatemalan Man
A federal judge ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who was deported to Mexico in February, after the government admitted to an error in its court statements about his case. The Guatemalan native, referred to as O.C.G. in court documents, left his homeland in March 2024 and entered the United States without prior authorization to seek asylum. He was sent back to Guatemala, and two months later, O.C.G. tried to reenter the United States through Mexico. According to The judge subsequently ruled that O.C.G. should not be returned to Guatemala due to his fears of persecution. Two days after being granted withholding of removal, he was placed on a bus to Mexico without being given the chance to speak to his attorney, court documents stated. After arriving in Mexico, O.C.G. was given a choice of whether to remain in detention while applying for asylum in Mexico or be sent back to Guatemala. He chose to return to Guatemala, where he has remained since, according to court documents. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy said that government lawyers initially said that O.C.G. had verbally expressed that he was not afraid of being sent to Mexico, citing data entries from immigration officers. Related Stories 5/21/2025 4/24/2025 The attorneys later admitted they could not identify any immigration officers to support that claim. 'No one has ever suggested that O.C.G. poses any sort of security threat,' Murphy stated in a 14-page order. 'In general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances, only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped.' Murphy acknowledged that mistakes can happen but said, 'the events leading up to this decision are troubling.' 'The Court was given false information, upon which it relied, twice, to the detriment of a party at risk of serious and irreparable harm,' he stated. Murphy ordered discovery, including depositions of those involved in giving the false information and related data entries. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for O.C.G. at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said that his legal team was 'elated' by Murphy's ruling and would work to facilitate a return plan. The Department of Homeland Security did not return a request for comment at the time of publication. The ruling came just days after Murphy In another case, the government said it The Supreme Court has ordered the administration to facilitate his return to the United States. The administration said it lacks the authority to return him because he is now in the custody of Salvadoran authorities. Reuters and Jacob Burg contributed to this report.
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Over Blocks on Trump's Birthright Citizenship Policy
The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments on May 15 over President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship and whether federal judges went too far in their decisions to block his order nationwide. It's the first major hearing of Trump's second term and could offer insight into how the justices view the ongoing legal challenges to his agenda. So far, federal judges have blocked a long list of the president's second-term policies while provoking criticism from Republicans alleging they abused their authority. The justices' eventual comments will play a role in congressional attempts to rein in the use of nationwide injunctions while also clarifying when they are and aren't appropriate. The hearing is somewhat unusual in that it's less focused on substantive interpretation of laws or constitutional provisions compared with other hearings. Instead, the administration has asked the court to temporarily halt three nationwide injunctions while the more in-depth questions about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment play out in the court system. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a brief to the court on April 7 that Trump's second term had already seen double the nationwide injunctions granted in the first three years of the Biden administration. 'Those injunctions thwart the Executive Branch's crucial policies on matters ranging from border security, to international relations, to national security, to military readiness,' he said. Related Stories 5/10/2025 11/24/2024 It's unclear if Sauer will argue on May 15, but that seemed likelier than usual given the high-profile nature of the case. On the other side, New Jersey Solicitor General Jeremy Feigenbaum and attorney Kelsi Corkran are expected to The Supreme Court could wade into the particulars of the orders and whether the judges needed to issue such sweeping injunctions. They could also probe the nature of judges' authority in issuing nationwide injunctions. Republicans have suggested that the practice of issuing nationwide relief, which has grown in recent years, exceeds the parameters that Article III of the Constitution sets up for courts' authority. That portion of the Constitution says the judicial branch has power over 'cases' and 'controversies.' Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has accused judges of exceeding that authority by granting relief to parties not before the court. 'Article III of the Constitution tasks the judicial branch with resolving 'cases' and 'controversies,' not making policy,' he Amid the procedural intricacies, the justices could still consider the constitutionality of the president's order in weighing whether the lower courts were right to issue injunctions at a preliminary stage of litigation. The issue stems from a provision of the 14th Amendment, which reads: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' The executive branch has interpreted this amendment to mean that the children of illegal immigrants should receive citizenship. Trump disputed that in his order on Jan. 20 and said that the amendment wasn't so far-reaching. His order directed the government not to grant citizenship if a person's mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual's father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person's birth. The order also states that the privilege of U.S. citizenship does not apply to an individual whose mother's presence was lawful but temporary and whose father was neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident at the time of that individual's birth. Critics say Trump's interpretation flies in the face of the plain language of the amendment and a decision the Supreme Court issued in 1898 called United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That case saw a majority of the court hold that the 14th Amendment granted birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were legally present in the United States. The administration has said the decision shouldn't be read as applying to the children of illegal immigrants. Federal judges in U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said in his Feb. 6 opinion that illegal immigrants were covered by the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' He, like other judges, has argued in favor of the nationwide scope of their injunctions. Coughenour said in February that a geographically limited injunction would be 'ineffective' because plaintiff states would have to pay for the children of illegal immigrants who travel from other states. 'For example, babies born in other states would travel to the Plaintiff States,' he said. 'Once they do, those persons would be eligible for service and support that, without nationwide relief, need be funded by the Plaintiff States.'
Time of India
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Jully urges guv to ensure disqualification of MLA
Jaipur/Alwar: Leader of Opposition Tuesday raised the issue of delay in the disqualification of convicted with governor Haribhau Bagde during an event in a formal letter submitted to Bagde, Jully accused Assembly Speaker Vasudev Devnani of "deliberately delaying" the disqualification process, despite 13 days passing since the upheld Meena's conviction in a 2005 criminal the letter, Jully cited that the Rajasthan High Court, on May 1, 2025, upheld Meena's three-year sentence for offences under IPC Sections 353, 506, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The Supreme Court, he added, already dismissed Meena's Special Leave Petition on May 7, 2025. "As per Article 191 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, any public representative sentenced to more than two years stands automatically disqualified from holding office," Jully the delay in action by the Speaker's office, Jully said, "Even after 13 days since the High Court's order, no step has been taken to disqualify Meena. The Speaker's inaction is a blatant disregard of constitutional duty and democratic norms."Jully urged the governor to uphold the constitutional mandate and ensure Meena's disqualification with effect from May 1, the date of the high court's decision. "The dignity of democratic institutions, the supremacy of the law, and the credibility of the legislature demand urgent intervention," he in the day, Congress chief whip Rafeek Khan also visited the Assembly with a letter from the Congress Legislature Party (CLP), calling for immediate action. "The Hon'ble Speaker is out of town. I met the Assembly secretary and demanded that disqualification proceedings be initiated without further delay, or people will lose faith in this institution," Khan said.
