ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Law — Divorce — Talaq — Essentials — Pronou...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Muslim Law — Divorce — Talaq — Essentials — Pronou...: A. Muslim Law — Divorce — Talaq — Essentials — Pronouncement — Reasonable cause — Reconciliation — Mandatory requirements — Mere plea of ear...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5, 11, 23, 24, 25 –...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5, 11, 23, 24, 25 –...: A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5, 11, 23, 24, 25 – Void Marriage – Permanent Alimony – Interim Maintenance (i) Void marriage – categorie...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i), 11, 17 – Void...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i), 11, 17 – Void...: A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 5(i), 11, 17 – Void Marriage – Maintainability of Petition First Wife's Right to Petition under S. 11 ...

Whether assignment deed requires registration. Held that an assignment deed of a decree for specific performance is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(e) where the decree itself does not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property; a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree which recognises the right to obtain execution but does not transfer title. (Paras 16–31, 25–30.)

Rajeswari & Ors. v. Shanmugam & Anr.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.13835 OF 2025
(@ SLP (C) No.3532 of 2018)
Supreme Court of India — Judgment dated: 19th November, 2025
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.

Head Notes

1. Registration — s.17(1)(e), Registration Act, 1908 — Assignment of decree for specific performance — Whether assignment deed requires registration. Held that an assignment deed of a decree for specific performance is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(e) where the decree itself does not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property; a decree for specific performance is a preliminary decree which recognises the right to obtain execution but does not transfer title. (Paras 16–31, 25–30.)

2. Nature of decree for specific performance — Decree does not itself vest title. A decree for specific performance recognises contractual obligations and empowers execution, but title and interest in immovable property pass only on execution and registration of the sale-deed. (Paras 16–24.)

3. Assignability & execution — Order XXI Rule 16 CPC. Rights under a decree (i.e., right to proceed in execution) are assignable; Order XXI Rule 16 permits execution by transferee, subject to proviso (notice to transferor and judgment-debtor and hearing of objections). Non-compliance with the proviso can vitiate execution proceedings. (Para 28.)

4. Precedent overruled to extent inconsistent. The decision in K. Bhaskaram (AIR 2005 AP 524), insofar as it treats assignment of a decree for specific performance as necessarily registrable under s.17(1)(e), is not correct law. (Paras 33–34.)

Facts of the Case

1. A decree for specific performance was passed on 13.09.1993 in O.S. No.100/1989 by the First Additional Sub Court, Erode, in favour of the decree-holder (predecessor of the appellants). The decree ordered execution of the sale-deed in favour of the decree-holder or permitted execution through court. (Para 3, 14.)

2. An assignment deed (Ex.B1) dated 17.07.1995 effected by the decree-holder purported to assign rights under that decree (for consideration of Rs.20,000) in favour of Shanmugam (respondent No.1). (Paras 3, 15.)

3. The assignee (respondent No.1) filed E.P. No.150/2004 in O.S. No.100/1989 seeking execution and direction to execute the sale-deed and deliver possession. The Executing Court on 13.03.2008 ordered execution of the sale-deed in favour of the assignee. (Paras 4–5.)

4. On 31.10.2009 the legal heirs of the judgment-debtor (appellants herein) filed E.A. No.180/2009 under Section 47 CPC to set aside execution, contending inter alia that the assignment deed was unregistered and therefore unenforceable; the Executing Court (by order dated 08.04.2010) allowed the application and held the assignment invalid for want of registration, relying on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court (K. Bhaskaram). (Paras 6–6, 18–19.)

5. The assignee filed revision before the High Court which allowed the revision and held the assignment deed need not be registered because the decree did not create any right, title or interest in immovable property itself. The present appeal challenges that outcome. (Para 7.)

Findings of the Court (Reasoning)

1. Nature of specific performance decree: The Court analysed authorities (including Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal and Suraj Lamp) and statutory provisions (Transfer of Property Act s.54; Specific Relief Act s.15, s.28) to reaffirm that a decree for specific performance is essentially a preliminary decree: it declares and enforces the contractual obligation but does not itself transfer ownership or create title/interest in the immovable property. Title passes only on execution of a registered sale-deed, either by the vendor or through court process. (Paras 16–24.)

2. Statutory text of s.17(1)(e): Section 17(1)(e) makes registration compulsory for non-testamentary instruments transferring/assigning any decree or order where the decree/order itself purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property of value ₹100 and upwards. The Court held that the decisive enquiry is whether the decree itself purports or operates to create/assign such right/title/interest. (Paras 25–26.)

3. Application to present facts: Since the decree for specific performance in this case does not itself create or vest title/interest in the immovable property in favour of the decree-holder (it only entitles the decree-holder to seek execution), Section 17(1)(e) is not attracted and registration of the assignment deed was not required. (Paras 26, 30.)

4. Assignability and procedure for execution: The Court noted rights under a decree may be assigned; Order XXI Rule 16 permits execution by transferee, subject to the proviso requiring notice to transferor and judgment-debtor and hearing of objections. The Court observed there was no argument of non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 16’s proviso before it in this appeal. (Paras 28–31.)

5. On contrary High Court decision (K. Bhaskaram): The Court held that the K. Bhaskaram decision had proceeded on an admission that registration was required and also dealt with non-compliance with Order XXI Rule 16; it does not correctly lay down the law in the broader sense and cannot be accepted as binding. (Para 33.)

6. Policy/revenue argument rejected: The Court rejected the submission that permitting assignment without registration will enable parties to avoid registration charges and cause revenue loss; since title does not pass until execution & registration of sale-deed, the fear is exaggerated. (Para 31–32.)

Final Decision / Disposition

1. The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme Court upholds the High Court’s judgment setting aside the Executing Court’s order that had denied execution on the ground that the assignment deed was unregistered. (Para 34–35.)

2. Reason: Assignment of the decree for specific performance in the facts of the case did not require registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act because the decree itself did not purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property — title/interest passes only upon execution and registration of the sale-deed. (Paras 26–31, 33–34.)

3. No order as to costs. (Para 35.)

I Bomma case study

 

⚖️ The iBomma Prosecution: India’s New Blueprint for Crushing Transnational Cybercrime

By M.Murali Mohan Advocate Sreenilayam Atmakur Nandyal District AP

The arrest of Emmadi Ravi, alleged mastermind behind the iBomma piracy syndicate, marks a turning point in India’s cyberlaw and intellectual property enforcement landscape. For the first time, a high-impact digital piracy case is being prosecuted under India’s new criminal codes — the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA).

Once Ravi was arrested through a Lookout Circular (LOC) at Hyderabad airport and investigators recovered hard disks containing 21,000 pirated films, the case transitioned into a textbook demonstration of how the new codes strengthen India’s ability to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction, handle digital evidence, and pursue financial crime across borders.

1. FIR & Remand Report: The Foundation of a Cross-Border Cybercrime Case

The prosecution began with a detailed complaint from film industry stakeholders, now governed by the procedural framework of the BNSS.

Document

Key Revelation (Based on Court Filings)

Legal Significance

FIR (BNSS Sec. 173)

Identifies Ravi as the primary operator and records massive piracy losses.

Establishes territorial jurisdiction through the location of harm.

Remand Report

Seizure of 21,000 pirated films; freezing of ~₹3 crore; recovery of devices, editing tools, and evidence of monetization.

Supplies prima facie evidence and triggers the separate PMLA financial probe.

Together, these documents form the prosecution’s backbone:

 digital evidence + financial trails + organized criminal conduct.

2. The Multi-Statute Framework: India’s Layered Attack on Organized Cyber Piracy

The iBomma prosecution blends the new BNS/BNSS with powerful special statutes.

Law/Act

Section

Focus

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

Sec. 61 – Criminal Conspiracy

Establishes coordinated operation of a piracy syndicate.

BNS

Sec. 318 – Cheating

Proves wrongful loss to producers and wrongful gain to operators.

BNS

Sec. 111 – Organized Crime

Newly introduced provision addressing syndicate-driven cybercrime.

IT Act, 2000

Sec. 66, Sec. 75

Punishes unauthorized access; grants extraterritorial jurisdiction.

PMLA, 2002

Sec. 3

Targets laundering of ₹12–₹20 crore in piracy proceeds.

Cinematograph Act (Amended)

Anti-piracy offences

Criminalizes unauthorized recording/transmission with 3 yrs + ₹10 lakh penalty.

Copyright Act

Sec. 63

Addresses commercial exploitation of copyrighted works.

This combined legal architecture creates a complete chain of liability:

 illegal access → reproduction → transmission → monetization → laundering → organized crime.

3. Probable Defense: Where They Will Try to Create Doubt

Defense Strategy

Applicable Law/Principle

Why the Defense Fails Under New Codes

Challenge to Digital Evidence

BSA + BNSS Sec. 105

BNSS now mandates audio-video recording of searches, and BSA’s strict electronic evidence rules make digital logs more reliable than before.

Attack on PMLA Predicate Offence

PMLA Sec. 24

Burden shifts to Ravi to prove money is not illicit — a near-impossible task without clean financial records.

“Aggregator, Not Uploader” Argument

Copyright Act Sec. 14

Legally irrelevant — unauthorized communication to the public is itself an offence.

Territorial Objection

IT Act Sec. 75

Neutralized by Objective Territoriality: harm occurred in India.

Under the new legal regime, these defenses are structurally weak.

4. The Game-Changer: Why Extradition and Offshore Servers Lose All Value After Arrest

One of the most misunderstood points in online discussions is this:

Once an accused is arrested in India and incriminating evidence is seized locally, extradition and foreign server locations become legally irrelevant.

4.1 Extradition Becomes Moot After Domestic Arrest

Extradition applies only when the accused is abroad.

Ravi was arrested in Hyderabad via a Lookout Circular (LOC).

Indian courts acquired complete personal jurisdiction immediately.

His alleged foreign citizenship or residence has zero legal impact.

This is settled criminal law doctrine.

4.2 Dual Enforcement: Police vs. Enforcement Directorate (ED)

Two systems operate independently:

✔ Police – BNSS (Equivalent to Old CrPC Sec. 102)

Freeze ~₹3 crore as part of the predicate offence investigation.

✔ Enforcement Directorate – PMLA

Registers ECIR.

Issues Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) for the larger ₹12–₹20 crore.

Proceeds to confirm attachment before the Adjudicating Authority.

Key point: ED’s powers are independent, wider, and aimed at permanent confiscation.

4.3 Offshore Servers Carry No Jurisdictional Weight

Under IT Act Sec. 75, India can prosecute cyber offences even when:

the server is abroad,

the website is hosted overseas, or

the operator uses foreign routing.

Jurisdiction depends on the place of harm, not the place of hosting.

Since iBomma’s financial and commercial injury occurred in India, foreign servers provide no defense.

5. International Law: India’s Assertion of Cyber Sovereignty

The case is an excellent illustration of international criminal law principles:

• Objective Territoriality

Jurisdiction arises because the harm — economic loss to Indian producers — occurred in India.

• Nationality Principle (BNS Sec. 4)

Indian citizens can be tried for offences committed abroad.

• Continuing Offence Doctrine

Digital streaming into India is a continuous offence, refreshed each time a viewer accesses the website.

6. Final Analysis: A Landmark Case in India’s Cyber Enforcement Architecture

The iBomma prosecution is much more than an anti-piracy case.

 It is the first real-world stress test for the BNS-BNSS-BSA trifecta in a transnational digital crime scenario.

If the State successfully:

links the seized devices to offshore operations,

tracks the full money trail into Indian accounts, and

proves organized criminal activity under BNS Sec. 111,

then this case will become India’s most important precedent on cyber piracy, digital forensics, extraterritoriality, and money laundering.

It will demonstrate that:

Modern cybercrime cannot hide behind foreign servers, foreign passports, VPN masking, or offshore monetization.

India is now fully equipped — legally and technologically — to assert cyber sovereignty in the global digital ecosystem.