List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, has held that in cases of immovable properties no title could be transferred on the basis of an Agreement to Sell or on the basis of a General Power of Attorney.

What was the Background of Shakeel Ahmed V. Syed Akhlaq Hussain Case?

• The appellant in this case is the defendant in the suit for possession and mesne profits instituted by the respondent with respect to the property in question.
  • Mesne profits are the profits which the person in wrongful possession of such property actually received or might with ordinary diligence have received therefrom.
• The suit was filed on the basis of a Power of Attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit and a will executed in favor of the respondent.
• The appellant was in possession of the property since he received it as a gift from his brother and the suit was contested on several grounds.
• The suit was decreed for possession and mesne profits in favor of the appellant.
• The appellant then approached the High Court of Delhi, but his appeal was dismissed.
• Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the SC.
• Allowing the appeal, the SC set aside the judgment of the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal observed no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney.
• The Court further states that even if these documents were registered, it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).
• The Court further noted that the law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908

• This section deals with the documents for which registration is compulsory. It states that—

(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:—

(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;

(c) non-testamentary instruments which acknowledge the receipt or payment of any consideration on account of the creation, declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

(e) non-testamentary instruments transferring or assigning any decree or order of a Court or any award when such decree or order or award purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property.

Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-section any lease executed in any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by which do not exceed five years and the annual rents reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.

(1A) The documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration, any immovable property for the purpose of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be registered if they have been executed on or after the commencement of the Registration and Other Related laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 and if such documents are not registered on or after such commencement, then, they shall have no effect for the purposes of the said section 53A.

(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to—

(i) any composition deed; or

(ii) any instrument relating to shares in a joint stock Company, notwithstanding that the assets of such Company consist in whole or in part of immovable property; or (iii) any debenture issued by any such Company and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest, to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Company has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holders of such debentures; or

(iv) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any such Company; or

(v) any document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1A) not itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any such right, title or interest; or

(vi) any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding; or

(vii) any grant of immovable property by Government; or

(viii) any instrument of partition made by a Revenue-Officer; or

(ix) any order granting a loan or instrument of collateral security granted under the Land Improvement Act, 1871, or the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883; or

(x) any order granting a loan under the Agriculturists, Loans Act, 1884, or instrument for securing the repayment of a loan made under that Act; or

(xa) any order made under the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890 (6 of 1890), vesting any property in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments or divesting any such Treasurer of any property; or

(xi) any endorsement on a mortgage-deed acknowledging the payment of the whole or any part of the mortgage-money, and any other receipt for payment of money due under a mortgage when the receipt does not purport to extinguish the mortgage; or

(xii) any certificate of sale granted to the purchaser of any property sold by public auction by a Civil or Revenue Officer.

Explanation. —A document purporting or operating to affect a contract for the sale of immovable property shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase money.

(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the 1st day of January 1872, and not conferred by a will, shall also be registered.

Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908

• This section deals with the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. It states that—

No document required by section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered shall—

(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or

(b) confer any power to adopt, or

(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered.

Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered instrument.

Section 54 of TPA

• This section deals with Sale.
  • Sale Defined – Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
  • Sale How Made—Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
    • In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
  • Contract for Sale—A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Punjab v. Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr., has held that the Governor has to return the bill to the legislature for consideration, if he decides to withhold assent to a Bill.

What was the Background of The State of Punjab v Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab and Anr. Case?

• On 22^nd February 2023, the Council of Ministers of the Government of Punjab forwarded a recommendation to the Governor of Punjab seeking the summoning of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha for its Budget Session commencing on 3 March 2023.
• The Governor’s refusal to do so, on the grounds that he was seeking legal advice, led to the institution of a petition before the Supreme Court on 25^th February 2023.
• Following the decision of the Court, the Sixteenth Punjab Vidhan Sabha was summoned on 3 March 2023.
• During the course of the session, the Vidhan Sabha passed four Bills, namely:
  • The Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill 2023
  • Punjab Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) (Amendment) Bill 2023
  • Punjab Universities Law (Amendment) Bill 2023
  • Punjab Police (Amendment) Bill 2023
• No action was taken by the Governor on these Bills.
• The seven Bills which have been kept pending by the Governor including the three Money Bills be processed in accordance with law.
• Aggrieved by the inaction of the Governor, the State of Punjab invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).
• By disposing the petition, the Supreme Court stated that the governor must act in a manner consistent with the provisions of Article 200 of the COI.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra observed that if the Governor decides to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 of COI, the logical course of action is to pursue the course indicated in the first proviso of remitting the Bill to the state legislature for reconsideration. In other words, the power to withhold assent under the substantive part of Article 200 of COI must be read together with the consequential course of action to be adopted by the Governor under the first proviso.
• The Court further states the Governor, as an unelected Head of State, is entrusted with certain constitutional powers. However, this power cannot be used to thwart the normal course of lawmaking by the State Legislatures. If the Governor decides to withhold assent to a Bill, then he has to return the bill to the legislature for reconsideration.

What is Article 200 of COI?

About:

• This Article deals with the assent to bills. It states that—

When a Bill has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of a State or, in the case of a State having a Legislative Council, has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of the State, it shall be presented to the Governor and the Governor shall declare either that he assents to the Bill or that he withholds assent therefrom or that he reserves the Bill for the consideration of the President:

Provided that the Governor may, as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent, return the Bill if it is not a Money Bill together with a message requesting that the House or Houses will reconsider the Bill or any specified provisions thereof and, in particular, will consider the desirability of introducing any such amendments as he may recommend in his message and, when a Bill is so returned, the House or Houses shall reconsider the Bill accordingly, and if the Bill is passed again by the House or Houses with or without amendment and presented to the Governor for assent, the Governor shall not withhold assent therefrom:

Provided further that the Governor shall not assent to, but shall reserve for the consideration of the President, any Bill which in the opinion of the Governor would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court as to endanger the position which that Court is by this Constitution designed to fill.

Case Law:

• In State of Telangana v. Secretary to Her Excellency the Hon’ble Governor for the State of Telangana & Anr. (2023), the Supreme Court observed that the expression “as soon as possible” has significant constitutional content and must be borne in mind by constitutional authorities.”
  • The Constitution evidently contains this provision bearing in mind the importance which has been attached to the power of legislation which squarely lies in the domain of the state legislature. The Governor cannot be at liberty to keep the Bill pending indefinitely without any action whatsoever.

Source: Delhi High Court

Why in News?

Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court asked the Delhi government to file a status report on why facility of e-mulakat should not be extended to all prisoners whose relatives stay outside Delhi and must travel to the capital for purposes of mulakat.

• The Delhi HC gave this judgment in the case of Sohrab v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.

What is the Background of Sohrab v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. Case?

• The Petitioner has approached the court by issuing the ‘Writ of Mandamus’.
• The Petitioner has already given a representation dated 29^th May 2023 stating that he has only wife and mother in this world and both of them are ill and they do not stay in Delhi and, therefore, the Petitioner must be given the benefit of e-mulakat.
• The Respondents are directed to file a ‘Status Report’ as to why the facility of e-mulakat should not extended to all the similarly situated prisoners whose relatives do not stay in Delhi and for the purpose of mulakat they have to come to Delhi from their native places.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The Delhi HC said that “The observation was made in connection with a petitioner’s prayer for direction to the State that he be allowed two e-mulakat every week with his family, so he could tend to his ailing mother and maintain social ties.”

What is E-Mulakat?

• During COVID Era, physical mulakat of the prisoners was stopped and use of E-Mulakat facility was introduced in Delhi Prisons.
• This facility is found very helpful especially for those jail inmates whose families/relatives are living at faraway places in the country or having difficulties in conducting physical interviews.
• Keeping a balance in between the merits and demerits of the facility it has been decided to continue this facility to the prisoners lodged in Delhi Prisons subject to following instructions:
  • E-Mulakat of a prisoner will be allowed only with his/her blood relatives/spouse as mentioned in the recorded list of the Jail.
  • Preference for the E-Mulakat facility will be given to those prisoner(s) who do not avail their physical mulakat.
  • E-Mulakat facility will be subject to maintaining good conduct in jail.
  • In no case more than two mulakat in a week be allowed in either case i.e., physical or e-mulakat or in combination thereto.
  • The E-Mulakat of the inmates lodged in the general ward of the prison will be held between 9:30 AM to 1:30 PM.
  • This facility will be allowed once in a week. The information about conducting E-Mulakat of these categories of prisoners shall be shared with the investigating agencies.
  • The Superintendent Jail shall ensure that the duration of the E-Mulakat shall not be more than 15 minutes. This facility should not be permitted on Holidays, Saturdays and Sundays.
  • The inmate shall be allowed to use the E-Mulakat facility only in the presence of jail official at least of the rank of Assistant Superintendent.
  • In case the inmate is transferred to some other Jail within Delhi then the copy of the permission granted for E-Mulakat facility shall also be forwarded to the transferee jail for taking appropriate action.
  • The E-Mulakat facility will not apply to foreign inmates involved in terrorist activities, offences against the State.