Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 292 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Bhoop Singh vs Ram Singh Major & Ors on 11 September, 1995

Munnoottam Kuzhiyil Vayaloli Balan ... vs Thekkedath Sankara Kurup on 9 August, 2011

38. Even otherwise, on the face of the inconsistency between Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Ors. and F.A.O.No.335 of 2011 28 K.Raghunandan Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir, both rendered by Benches of co-equal strength of the Supreme Court, until the reference is answered by the larger Bench, this Court is bound to follow the latter decision - K.Raghunandan Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir as held by the Full Bench of this Court also in Raman Gopi Vs. Kunju Raman Uthaman (2011(4) KLT 458). It follows that since the decree in O.S.No.420 of 1961 is concerning the subject matter of that suit (which is the suit property herein), that decree did not require registration compulsorily and is saved by the exception contained in Subsec.(2)(vi) of Sec.17 of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - T Joseph - Full Document

Munnoottam Kuzhiyil Vayaloli Balan ... vs Thekkedath Sankara Kurup on 9 August, 2011

38. Even otherwise, on the face of the inconsistency between Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and Ors. and F.A.O.No.335 of 2011 28 K.Raghunandan Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir, both rendered by Benches of co-equal strength of the Supreme Court, until the reference is answered by the larger Bench, this Court is bound to follow the latter decision - K.Raghunandan Vs. Ali Hussain Sabir as held by the Full Bench of this Court also in Raman Gopi Vs. Kunju Raman Uthaman (2011(4) KLT 458). It follows that since the decree in O.S.No.420 of 1961 is concerning the subject matter of that suit (which is the suit property herein), that decree did not require registration compulsorily and is saved by the exception contained in Subsec.(2)(vi) of Sec.17 of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Smt. Sitabai vs Jainarayan S/O Late Shri Thanmal ... on 17 March, 2023

12. Moreover it is apparent that the decree which has been passed is in respect of the same subject matter of the suit which was detailed in the plaint. It cannot in any manner be said that the decree is in respect of any property which was not a property of the suit. The judgment in the case of Bhoop Singh (supra) hence was not applicable to the facts of the present case and the Court below has committed an error in holding that the compromise decree would be executable only upon the same being registered in the office of the Registrar.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Verma - Full Document

Smt. Parbati And Anr vs Satbir Singh on 27 November, 2025

43. Once it is accepted that there was no familial rela/onship between the par/es, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the decree dated 25.10.1978 was not a bona fide family arrangement, but a device employed to confer fresh rights in immovable property upon strangers without adhering to the mandatory requirements of the Registra/on Act. As held by the Hon'ble Su- preme Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, a decree which, under the guise of a compromise, creates new rights in immovable property in favour of persons having no antecedent /tle or lawful claim, must be compulsorily re- gistered. Its non-registra/on renders it legally ineffec/ve.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dhupli vs Satbir Singh on 27 November, 2025

43. Once it is accepted that there was no familial rela/onship between the par/es, the conclusion becomes inescapable that the decree dated 25.10.1978 was not a bona fide family arrangement, but a device employed to confer fresh rights in immovable property upon strangers without adhering to the mandatory requirements of the Registra/on Act. As held by the Hon'ble Su- preme Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, a decree which, under the guise of a compromise, creates new rights in immovable property in favour of persons having no antecedent /tle or lawful claim, must be compulsorily re- gistered. Its non-registra/on renders it legally ineffec/ve.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 December, 2024

In view of enunciation of law in Bhoop Singh case [Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 709], we find that the judgment [Tikka Maheshwar Chand v. Ripudaman Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 3808] and decree of the High Court holding that the decree requires compulsory registration is erroneous in law. The compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed.” Thus, it could be discernible that in order to fall under the exception of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908, the following conditions must be satisfied:
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Munnalal Shivhare vs Smt.Hanumant Kumari on 1 May, 2025

In view of enunciation of law in Bhoop Singh case [Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 709], we find that the judgment [Tikka Maheshwar Chand v. Ripudaman Singh, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 3808] and decree of the High Court holding that the decree requires compulsory Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/2/2025 7:35:49 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9640 17 MP-1028-2019 registration is erroneous in law. The compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the suit is decreed."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

(O&M) Atma Singh And Others vs Jaswant Singh And Others on 3 December, 2025

17. Bhoop Singh [Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 709] was a case dealing with both the situations, decree between the parties where the decree-holder decree holder does not have any pre pre-existing ng right in the property and also the situation where decree decree-holder has a pre-existing existing right. It was the second situation where the decree decree-holder holder has a pre-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - A S Grewal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next