Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The trial court held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was enforceable even without registration as it was not hit by Section 17(1) of the Registration Act; that the said decree had recognised the right claimed by the plaintiff and in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession from the assignee of the other co-owner in enforcement of his right of pre-emption. On appeal, the lower appellate court affirmed this view of the trial court. The lower appellate court also held that what was involved in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was a family arrangement and since a bona fide family arrangement among the members of a family in the larger sense of the term, did not require registration, no objection could be raised by the contesting defendants to the enforceability of the title claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the decree of the trial court was affirmed. The contesting defendants filed a second appeal. They raised the substantial question of law that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 created rights in favour of the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre-existing right and such a decree, to become enforceable, required registration. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others [(1995) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 466) in support. The High Court held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was based on a family settlement which did not require registration and that the decree itself did not require registration in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Thus, the substantial question of law formulated was answered in favour of the plaintiff, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were confirmed and the second appeal filed by the contesting defendants was dismissed. It is challenging this decision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave is filed by the contesting defendants.

4. The decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was really a decree on admission. It was not a compromise decree. In the plaint in that suit the present plaintiff and his brother had asserted that Sheo Ram the son of the sister of the assignor of the contesting defendants had relinquished his half share in the properties in their favour and on the death of Phusa Ram the grandfather of Sheo Ram, the plaintiffs therein had become the absolute owners of that half share and the defendant Sheo Ram did not have any right in the property. This case set up by the plaintiffs in that suit was admitted in his written statement by Sheo Ram as also in his evidence. Based on these admissions, the court decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs therein. The decree thus upheld the right of the present plaintiff and his brother to one half of the present suit property on the basis of the arrangement between themselves and Sheo Ram. This decree is relied on by the present plaintiff as affirming his right that entitles him to exercise a right of pre-emption in respect of the other half that belonged to the assignor of the contesting defendants. It is in that context that the contesting defendants have raised the contention that the decree created fresh rights in the property in favour of the plaintiff wherein he had no pre- existing right and hence that decree required registration. It is also attempted to be argued that the decree is one on compromise and going by the ratio of Bhoop Singh (supra), it required registration.

5. On an advertence to the circumstances leading to that decree, in the context of the pleadings in that suit, we are not in a position to agree with counsel for the contesting defendants that the decree was a compromise decree. It was really a decree on admission and the admission was of the pre-existing right set up by the plaintiffs as created by Sheo Ram. The decree by itself did not create any right in immovable property. It only recognised the right set up by the plaintiffs in that suit in respect of the property involved in that suit. It is one thing to say that that decree is vitiated by collusion or by fraud or some such vitiating element. But it is quite another thing to say that such a decree could be excluded from consideration on the ground of want of registration.

16. Going by the history of the legislation, the decisions of the Privy Council and of the High Courts earlier rendered we are satisfied that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 is admissible in evidence to establish that there had been a relinquishment of his interest by Sheo Ram in favour of the present plaintiff and his brother and that they were entitled to possession of half share in the property. Firstly, the decree did not create any title for the first time in the present plaintiff and his brother. Secondly, as a decree it did not require registration in view of clause (vi) of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, though it was a decree based on admission. We have noticed that there is no challenge to that decree either on the ground that it was fraudulent or vitiated by collusion or that it was passed by a court which had no jurisdiction to pass it. It is not as if a litigant cannot admit a true claim and he has necessarily to controvert whatever has been stated in a plaint or deny a transaction set up in the plaint even if, as a matter of fact, such a transaction had gone through. Therefore, merely because a decree is based on admission, it would not mean that the decree is vitiated by collusion. Though, generally there is reluctance on the part of the litigants to come forward with the truth in a Court of law, we cannot accede to the argument that they are not entitled to admit something that is true while they enter their plea. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no merit in the challenge of counsel for the contesting defendants to the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980.