Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Ram Gati Chaube vs Ran Adhar Chaube on 17 May, 1961

Shyam Sunder And Ors. vs Siya Ram And Anr. on 28 July, 1972

In Ram Gati Chaube's case (Supra), the parties had entered into a compromise in a mutation case, on the basis of which some specific properties were given to the rival Parties as absolute owners and it was stipulated that they will have no title to or concern with the properties given to the other party. The S.D.O. passed a one word order" 'approved', without incorporating the said terms in his order. The Full Bench formulated six questions but decided only the first two namely, whether the order of the mutation Court embodied the petition of compromise and whether the said compromise declared rights to immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- and was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The Full Bench held that had the S.D.O.'s order explicitly recorded the entire compromise, no problem would have been posed. However, the order could be deemed to emfody only those provisions which specify the properties to be mutated and it could not be deemed to refer to and embody those provisions of the compromise which declared the parties to be the absolute owners. The other questions about admissibilitv of the compromise comprised in questions Nos. 3 to 6 remained unanswered. That being so, this case also does not help the appellants.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Mehdi Hasan vs Ram Ker on 16 September, 1981

14. It was urged by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent that even on the assumption that the compromise dated 13-2-1963 was a family arrangement, it could not be pressed into aid by the plaintiff for admittedly it was not a registered document even though the subject matter thereof was of a value in excess of Rs. 100/-. It could not therefore, be looked into for any purpose whatever nor could the plaintiff claim to assail the sale deed in favour of the defendant-respondent on account of the stipulation contained therein. Reliance was placed, in support of his submission, by the learned counsel upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Gati Chaube v. Ram Adhar Chaube (AIR 1961 All 537). It was observed by the Full Bench in that case that, inasmuch as, the compromise application, which was up for consideration before it, declared rights to immoveable property worth more than Rs. 100/-, it required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and not being registered, it was ineffective and inadmissible in evidence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Udai Narain Rai, Abhai Narain Rai, ... vs Deputy Director Consolidation And Ors. on 22 August, 2006

8. Sri Sankatha Rai submitted that the compromise application was inadmissible for want of registration. He placed reliance upon 1961 A.LJ 440, Ram Gati Chaubey v. Ram Adhar Chaubey. In that case it was held that a compromise declaring the parties to be absolute owners of their shares worth more than Rs. 100 being unregistered was ineffective and inadmissible in evidence. The case is distinguishable as a declaration of absolute ownership of the parties was made in the compromise application in that case. Rights were thus sought to be declared by the compromise which was therefore compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act. In the present case the compromise was a mere statement of the existing state of affairs that the property was joint and an order for mutating the names of all the branches was passed on the basis of the application. Such an admission of the existing state of affairs is not a declaration. It was also submitted by Sri Sankatha Rai that the compromise was not signed by parties and they never entered into it. The issue raises a question of fact. The court below have negatived this contention and it was found that such a mutation case was indeed instituted and ended in a compromise. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has also found that the compromise was acted upon and the names of all the parties on the strength of that order were recorded in the revenue records and continued to be so recorded over a long period of time without any objection by the petitioner Bhola Rai who had knowledge about the said entries.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - J Sahai - Full Document

Nalini W/O Onkar Patil vs Girdhar Kashinath Patil And Ors. on 27 July, 2001

13. The learned advocate for the petitioner is justified in placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Ram Gati Chaube 's case. The Full Bench therein has held that as the compromise application declared rights to immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/-, required registration under Section 17(1) and having not being registered, it was ineffective and inadmissible in evidence.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document
1