Bankauctions; ClientAdvisory;PropertyLaw ;DueDiligence;
Legal Risk Auctions under SARFAESI Act often attract bidders due to perceived statutory backing and competitive pricing. However, recent judicial pronouncements reiterate that such auctions may not guarantee a clear, marketable or litigation-free title.Strict compliance is mandatory; procedural lapses can vitiate the sale.“As is where is / as is what is” clauses do not protect buyers from illegalities, lack of authority or title defects. Pending proceedings, writs, or civil disputes may survive the auction.If the auction process itself is found to be contrary to law or procedure, the sale may be challenged, even after confirmation, as such placing the purchaser at risk. Blind reliance on auction notices or institutional backing can lead to prolonged litigation and financial exposure.Participation in SARFAESI auctions should be preceded by thorough title verification and procedural review. Caveat Emptor applies with full force.Therefore, Bidders must independently verify:Ownership and title chain Pending litigation or disputes Encumbrances, Compliance with procedural requirements of the auction.
#kgopicase ;mutation does not confer title registrar cannot deny registration based on lack of mutation samiullah case supreme court judgement on power of sub registrar samiullah case
The Supreme Court, recently in the case of Samiullah v State of Bihar 2025 IN SC 1292 examined the constitutional validity of amendments to the Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 which required a transferor to produce mutation (Jamabandi) records as a condition precedent for registration of sale/gift deeds.The Supreme Court struck down the impugned rules as ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908, holding that the rule-making power under section 69 cannot be used to impose substantive conditions not contemplated by the parent statute.The Apex Court emphasised that registration authority does not have the power to examine title, and that registering authorities cannot refuse registration by scrutinising ownership or revenue records. A Sub‑Registrar must register a document if statutory formalities under the registration act are complied with. The registrar is not entitled to assess ownership, title defects, or revenue records. Relying on K. Gopi v Sub-Registrar, it reiterated that mutation entries are maintained for fiscal purposes and do not confer or prove title. Mutation entries are fiscal records maintained for land revenue purposes. They do not create, extinguish, or prove title. Accordingly, absence of mutation cannot be a lawful ground to refuse registration.The decision curbs executive overreach, reinforces the limited role of registering officers, and strengthens legal certainty in property transactions.Parties can now insist on registration of sale and gift deeds on the basis of valid execution, stamping, and presentation alone. Mutation status is immaterial for registration purposes. While mutation is not a registration requirement, it remains relevant post‑registration. Transaction documents should clearly allocate responsibility for post‑registration mutation and include timelines and cooperation obligations.