Skip to content
rawlaw unfiltered legal news Raw Law

Unfiltered Legal Insights

  • News
  • Services for Advocates
  • Bookmarks
  • facebook.com
  • twitter.com
  • t.me
  • instagram.com
  • youtube.com

Property Law

Home - Property Law

Supreme-Court-Holds-Power-of-Attorney-Holder-Must-Comply-with-Mandatory-Authentication-Requirements-Under-Registration-Law-An-Agent-Never-Becomes-the-Executant-Merely-by-Signing-on-Behalf-of-Principal
Posted inNews

Supreme Court Holds Power of Attorney Holder Must Comply with Mandatory Authentication Requirements Under Registration Law: “An Agent Never Becomes the Executant Merely by Signing on Behalf of Principal”

Court’s Decision The Supreme Court in this case dealt with the crucial legal question concerning the registration of sale deeds executed through a power of attorney. The Court held that…
Posted by Rawlaw July 16, 2025
Karnataka-High-Court-Rejects-Title-Claim-Based-Solely-on-Revenue-Records-Mere-Entries-in-Revenue-Records-Do-Not-Establish-Ownership-and-Cannot-Override-Legal-Title-in-Immovable-Property-Matters
Posted inNews

Karnataka High Court Rejects Title Claim Based Solely on Revenue Records: “Mere Entries in Revenue Records Do Not Establish Ownership and Cannot Override Legal Title in Immovable Property Matters”

Court’s Decision The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court's judgment which had set aside the Trial Court’s decree declaring the plaintiff as…
Posted by Rawlaw June 23, 2025
Chhattisgarh-High-Court-Sets-Aside-Appellate-Court-Decree-Granting-Possession-in-Ancestral-Property-Dispute—The-burden-to-prove-self-acquired-property-lies-on-the-person-who-asserts-such-acquisition
Posted inNews

Chhattisgarh High Court Sets Aside Appellate Court Decree Granting Possession in Ancestral Property Dispute—”The burden to prove self-acquired property lies on the person who asserts such acquisition.”

Court’s Decision The Chhattisgarh High Court, in SA No. 378 of 1992, allowed the second appeal preferred by the defendants and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.08.1992 passed…
Posted by Rawlaw June 17, 2025

Recent News

  • Bombay High Court: “Unsuccessful Party Can Also Seek Section 9 Protection”; L&T Directed To Keep ₹150 Crore Bank Guarantee Alive In ONGC Arbitration
  • “He Who Seeks Equity Must Do Equity”: Supreme Court Holds Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Is Not Deposited Within Time
  • Bombay High Court Rejects Tenants’ Plea To Add New Developer; Says Application Prima Facie Appears “Moved And Financed” By Proposed Developer, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs
  • Bombay High Court Refuses To Cancel Bail In Pending Murder Appeal; Says “Bail Once Granted Ought Not To Be Cancelled” Without Strong Grounds
  • Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank And Phoenix ARC Officials Filed After Recovery Proceedings; Says “Personal Vendetta Writ Large”, Investigation Would Be Abuse Of Process
Copyright 2026 — Raw Law. All rights reserved.
Scroll to Top