Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950
In support of his submission, the learned counsel has
referred us to number of decisions starting from that of the
Privy Council in Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur
Zamindari Co. Ltd., 1919 I.A. 240, whose ratio was relied
upon by this Court in Mangan Lal Deoshi v. Mohammad Moinul
Haque, 1950 SCR 833. In these two cases it was held that the
decree in question was not required to be registered
because, in the first case, the compromise was accepted to
be "an agreement to lease", whereas in the second case the
facts disclosed that the agreement was contingent, and so,
no lease came into existence. It was, therefore, held that
the cases did not come within the fold of clause (d) of sub-
section (1) of section 17, and so, the court's order was not
required to be registered. These cases are thus of no
assistance to the petitioner.
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
6. Shri Sehgal has then referred us to Bishundeo Narain v.
Seoqeni Rai & Jagernath, 1951 SCR 548, and Shanker Sitaram
Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, 1955 (1) SCR 99. A
perusal of these judgments show that they are not relevant
having dealt with some other questions of law.
Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And Another vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And Others on 12 April, 1954
6. Shri Sehgal has then referred us to Bishundeo Narain v.
Seoqeni Rai & Jagernath, 1951 SCR 548, and Shanker Sitaram
Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, 1955 (1) SCR 99. A
perusal of these judgments show that they are not relevant
having dealt with some other questions of law.
Surjya Kumar Das vs Sm. Maya Dutta on 22 December, 1981
AIR 1982 Calcutta 222 (Surjya
Kumar Das v. Sm. Maya Dutta) also sustains the legal
proposition advanced by the learned counsel to the extent
that a compromise decree confined to the subject matter of
suit does not require registration to confer title by its
force.
C. Muthuvel Pillai vs Hazarath Syed Shah Mian Sakkab Sahib ... on 6 April, 1973
9. The point in C. Muthuvel Pillai v. Hazarath Syed Shah
Mian, AIR 1974 Madras 199, was relatable to the question as
to what is the purport to the expression "subject matter of
the suit or proceeding" finding place in clause (vi). This
decision is thus is on a point not relevant for our purpose.
Gurdev Kaur And Anr. vs Mehar Singh And Ors. on 28 July, 1988
11. The sheet anchor of Shri Sehgal's submission is a Bench
decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurdev Kaur
v. Mehar Singh, 1989 PLJ 182. Reference to that decision
shows that the Bench opined that the view taken by learned
Single Judges of High Court in some earlier cases that a
decree based on compromise conferring title required
registration, even though it related to the property in
suit, was not correct.
Tek Bahadur Bhujil vs Debi Singh Bhujil And Ors. on 26 February, 1965
In Tek Bahadur v. Debi Singh & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 292,
the Constitution Bench of this Court considered the validity
of the family arrangement and the question was whether it
requires to be compulsorily registered under section 17.
This Court, while upholding oral family arrangement, held
that registration would be necessary only if the terms of
the family arrangements are reduced into writing. A
distinction should be made between the document containing
the terms and recital of family arrangement made under the
document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family
arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of
record or for information of the court for making necessary
mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not
create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and
therefore does not fall within the mischief of section 17(2)
of the Registration Act. It was held that a memorandum of
family arrangement made earlier which was filed in the court
for its information was held not compulsorily registrable
and therefore it can be used in evidence for collateral
purpose, namely, for the proof of family arrangement which
was final and binds the parties.
Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. on 1 March, 1966
The same view was
reiterated in Maturi Pullaiah & Anr. v. Maturi Narasimham &
Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1836, wherein it was held that the family
arrangement will need registration only if it creates any
interest in immovable property in present time in favour of
the parties mentioned therein. In case where no such
interest is created the document will be valid, despite it
being non-registered and will not be hit by section 17 of
the Act.
Ratan Lal Sharma vs Purshottam Harit on 11 January, 1974
In Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam Harit, 1974 (3) SCR
109, this Court held that the award had expressly made an
exclusive allotment of partnership assets, including the
factory and liabilities to the appellant, and made him
absolutely entitled to the same, thereby purporting to
create rights in immovable property worth above Rs.100/- in
favour of the appellant. It was, therefore, held that it
required registration under section 17 of the Act. It was
also pointed that it is equally settled law that the share
of a partner in the assets of the partnership which has
immovable property is a movable property and that the
assignment of the share does not require registration under
section 17. Take the familiar cases of a decree in suit for
specific performance of a contract. Though a contract of
sale is not compulsorily registrable as it does not create
title or right in immovable property; but on a decree for
specific performance made by the court, the document
executed in furtherance thereof requires registration though
it has the imprint of the decree of the court.