Segment 12: Questions Based on Leading Cases (221–240)
- In which case was it held that an unregistered sale deed could not be admitted as evidence of title but can be used for collateral purposes?
a) S.K. Sharma v. Krishna Devi
b) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
c) Ram Gopal v. Prabhu Dayal
d) Rajendra Prasad v. Kalyan Singh
[read more] Answer: b) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
Explanation: The Supreme Court held in this case that an unregistered document, while inadmissible for proving title, may still be used for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. [/read]
- Which case emphasized that a lease deed for a term exceeding one year must be registered?
a) Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons
b) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
c) Sita Ram v. Radha Bai
d) S.K. Sharma v. Krishna Devi
[read more] Answer: a) Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop & Sons
Explanation: The Supreme Court held that as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, leases exceeding one year require mandatory registration to be legally valid. [/read]
- In which case was it decided that a registered document prevails over an unregistered one in matters of immovable property?
a) Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar
b) Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair
c) Radhomal Alumal v. G.L. Mehta
d) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
[read more] Answer: b) Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair
Explanation: This case established the principle that a registered document has priority and legal validity over an unregistered one under Section 50 of the Registration Act, 1908. [/read]
- Which case clarified the validity of an unregistered will under the Registration Act, 1908?
a) Bhup Narain Singh v. Gokul Chand Mahton
b) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
c) Prem Singh v. Birbal
d) Harish Chandra v. Harish Chandra
[read more] Answer: a) Bhup Narain Singh v. Gokul Chand Mahton
Explanation: The court held that registration of wills is not mandatory under Section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908, and an unregistered will can be valid if properly executed. [/read]
- In which case was it held that the description of property in a registered document must be sufficient to identify the property?
a) Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity
b) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
c) Sita Ram v. Radha Bai
d) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
[read more] Answer: a) Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity
Explanation: The court ruled that a document failing to provide an adequate description of the property is invalid under Section 21 of the Registration Act, 1908. [/read]
- Which leading case clarified the role of Section 33 regarding authentication of a power of attorney?
a) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
b) T.K. Sarala v. T.K. Velu
c) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata
d) Maneklal Mansukhbhai v. Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla
[read more] Answer: c) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata
Explanation: This case held that the execution and authentication of a power of attorney must comply with Section 33 to ensure its admissibility for registration purposes. [/read]
- Which case clarified the doctrine of part performance in relation to unregistered documents?
a) Asha M. Jain v. Canara Bank
b) Arif v. Jadunath Majumdar
c) K.K. Dewan v. Devi Dayal
d) Hari Prasad v. Asha Rani
[read more] Answer: b) Arif v. Jadunath Majumdar
Explanation: The doctrine of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, allows for certain unregistered agreements to be enforced if possession is given. [/read]
- In which case was the scope of Section 47 regarding priority of registered documents elaborated?
a) Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar
b) Mathura Prasad v. Chandra Prakash
c) Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar
d) Nirmal Chandra v. Girindra Narayan
[read more] Answer: c) Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar
Explanation: The court held that Section 47 gives precedence to registered documents based on the time of execution, even if they are registered later. [/read]
- Which case dealt with fraudulent registration and penalties under the Registration Act, 1908?
a) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
b) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
c) Subramanian Swamy v. Arun Subramanian
d) Prem Singh v. Birbal
[read more] Answer: b) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
Explanation: The court in this case addressed fraudulent registration under Section 82 of the Registration Act and prescribed penalties for such acts. [/read]
- In which case was the registration of agreements to sell held mandatory for enforcement?
a) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
b) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
c) Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair
d) Bhup Narain Singh v. Gokul Chand Mahton
[read more] Answer: a) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
Explanation: The court ruled that an agreement to sell immovable property must be registered to have legal validity and enforceability under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. [/read]
- Which case clarified the requirement of presenting a document for registration by an authorized agent under Section 32?
a) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
b) T.K. Sarala v. T.K. Velu
c) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata
d) Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar
[read more] Answer: b) T.K. Sarala v. T.K. Velu
Explanation: The court emphasized in this case that a document for registration must be presented by the executor or a duly authorized agent under Section 32 to ensure its legal validity. [/read]
- Which case dealt with the admissibility of unregistered documents in proving a contract for specific performance?
a) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
b) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
c) Sardar Amarjit Singh v. Sardar Baldev Singh
d) Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major
[read more] Answer: d) Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major
Explanation: The court in this case held that an unregistered document could not be used to prove title but can be admitted for proving a contract for specific performance under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. [/read]
- In which case was it held that certified copies of registered documents can be used as evidence?
a) K.K. Dewan v. Devi Dayal
b) Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand
c) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
d) Balkrishna Das v. Radha Devi
[read more] Answer: d) Balkrishna Das v. Radha Devi
Explanation: The court ruled that certified copies of registered documents can be admitted as evidence under Sections 57 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, provided they are obtained as per the prescribed process. [/read]
- Which case interpreted the word “execution” under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908?
a) Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity
b) Harinarayan v. Badri Das
c) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
d) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
[read more] Answer: b) Harinarayan v. Badri Das
Explanation: The court in this case clarified that “execution” refers to the act of signing a document intending to give it legal effect, making it eligible for registration under Section 17. [/read]
- In which case was it held that a non-testamentary document affecting immovable property must be registered?
a) K.K. Dewan v. Devi Dayal
b) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
c) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
d) Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair
[read more] Answer: c) Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh
Explanation: The court emphasized that a non-testamentary document affecting immovable property is mandatorily registrable under Section 17 to provide legal validity. [/read]
- Which case upheld the validity of oral agreements regarding immovable property under specific circumstances?
a) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
b) Sardar Amarjit Singh v. Sardar Baldev Singh
c) Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major
d) Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana
[read more] Answer: b) Sardar Amarjit Singh v. Sardar Baldev Singh
Explanation: The court ruled that oral agreements involving immovable property are valid under certain conditions but cannot override the requirements of Section 17 regarding registration of written agreements. [/read]
- Which case highlighted the limited scope of Section 49 for collateral use of unregistered documents?
a) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
b) Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar
c) Prem Singh v. Birbal
d) Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity
[read more] Answer: a) K.B. Saha & Sons v. Development Consultant Ltd.
Explanation: The Supreme Court in this case clarified that while unregistered documents are inadmissible for proving title, they can be used for collateral purposes under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. [/read]
- In which case was it held that documents executed outside India can be presented for registration within four months of their arrival in India?
a) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata
b) Harinarayan v. Badri Das
c) Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand
d) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
[read more] Answer: c) Lala Durga Prasad v. Lala Deep Chand
Explanation: The court interpreted Section 26, which provides that documents executed outside India must be presented for registration within four months of being brought into the country. [/read]
- Which case explained the role of acknowledgment under Section 58 for validating registration?
a) K.K. Dewan v. Devi Dayal
b) T.K. Sarala v. T.K. Velu
c) Panchanan Dhara v. Monmatha Nath Maity
d) Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal
[read more] Answer: a) K.K. Dewan v. Devi Dayal
Explanation: The court stated that acknowledgment of execution by the executant is essential under Section 58, and the Registrar must verify this before registering the document. [/read]
- Which case clarified the importance of Section 88 regarding the certification of public officers’ documents?
a) Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar
b) State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata
c) Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar
d) Bhup Narain Singh v. Gokul Chand Mahton
[read more] Answer: a) Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar
Explanation: The court in this case highlighted the procedure under Section 88 for public officers to certify documents, ensuring their admissibility for registration. [/read]