Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.30 seconds)Bhoop Singh vs Ram Singh Major & Ors on 11 September, 1995
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India approbated the ratio
of the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major (supra) by observing
20
Second Appeal No. 88 of 2007
thus in paragraph-38 in the case of K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain
Sabir, (2008) 13 SCC 102 which reads as under:
K. Raghunandan & Ors vs Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors on 14 May, 2008
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India approbated the ratio
of the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major (supra) by observing
20
Second Appeal No. 88 of 2007
thus in paragraph-38 in the case of K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain
Sabir, (2008) 13 SCC 102 which reads as under:
The Registration Act, 1908
Mohammade Yusuf vs Rajkumar on 5 February, 2020
Yusuf v. Rajkumar, 2017 SCC OnLine MP 2056] . The
compromise decree dated 4-10-1985 is directed to be
exhibited by the trial court. The appeal is allowed
accordingly. (Emphasis supplied)
Bachan Singh vs Kartar Singh And Ors. on 31 July, 2001
32. Now coming to the second limb of the additional substantial
question of law formulated as to whether the first appellate court
committed an error of law by discarding the compromise decree being
Ext. 4/a on the ground that the same has not been registered though
the compromise decree passed by the competent court of law in Title
Suit No. 92 of 1967 was compulsorily registerable is concerned, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that undisputedly, the suit land of
this suit i.e. Title Suit No.70 of 1975 was subject matter of Title Suit
No.92 of 1967. Though the defendants took the plea in their written
statement that the said decree is a collusive one but the defendants of
the suit having not filed any separate suit to declare the compromise
21
Second Appeal No. 88 of 2007
decree passed in Title Suit No.92 of 1967 as null certainly, the first
appellate court erred by discarding the same in view of the settled
principle of law in the case of Bachan Singh vs. Kartar Singh and Ors.
(supra).
Section 145 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M. Meenakshi & Ors vs Metadin Agarwal (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 29 August, 2006
25. Mr. Shashank Shekhar in support of his contention that in
the absence of any challenge to the compromise decree passed in Title
Suit No.92 of 1967 the same ought to have been relied upon by the first
appellate court, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in the case of M. Meenakshi & Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal &
Ors. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 470, paragraph no.18 of which reads as
under :-
Surjya Kumar Das vs Sm. Maya Dutta on 22 December, 1981
Surjya Kumar Das v. Maya Dutta
[AIR 1982 Cal 222 : (1982) 86 CWN 359 : (1982) 1 Cal LJ
179] also sustains the legal proposition advanced by the
16
Second Appeal No. 88 of 2007
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.
Gurdev Kaur And Anr. vs Mehar Singh And Ors. on 28 July, 1988
In
support of this contention of him as well compromise or consent
decree do not require registration, even if it creates title in respect of
immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or more, provided it is
10
Second Appeal No. 88 of 2007
subject matter of suit, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon
a number of judgments, the first judgment being of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Gurdev Kaur and Another vs.
Mehar Singh And Others reported in AIR 1989 Punjab And Haryana
324, paragraph no.1 and 27 of which reads as under :-