Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)Bhoop Singh vs Ram Singh Major & Ors on 11 September, 1995
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.
Mangan Lal Deoshi vs Mohammad Moinul Haoque & Others on 1 December, 1950
(1918-19) 46 IA 240] and this Court's cases [Ed.: The
reference is to Mangan Lal Deoshi v. Mohd. Moinul Haque,
1950 SCC 760 : AIR 1951 SC 11; Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni
Rai, 1951 SCC 447 : AIR 1951 SC 280 and Shankar Sitaram
Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352] ,
it is apparent that the decree would not require registration.
Bishundeo Narain And Another vs Seogeni Rai And Jagernath on 4 May, 1951
(1918-19) 46 IA 240] and this Court's cases [Ed.: The
reference is to Mangan Lal Deoshi v. Mohd. Moinul Haque,
1950 SCC 760 : AIR 1951 SC 11; Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni
Rai, 1951 SCC 447 : AIR 1951 SC 280 and Shankar Sitaram
Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352] ,
it is apparent that the decree would not require registration.
Shankar Sitaram Sontakke And Another vs Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke And Others on 12 April, 1954
(1918-19) 46 IA 240] and this Court's cases [Ed.: The
reference is to Mangan Lal Deoshi v. Mohd. Moinul Haque,
1950 SCC 760 : AIR 1951 SC 11; Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni
Rai, 1951 SCC 447 : AIR 1951 SC 280 and Shankar Sitaram
Sontakke v. Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke, AIR 1954 SC 352] ,
it is apparent that the decree would not require registration.
S.V.S. Muhammad Yusuf Rowther And Anr. vs Muhammad Yusuf Rowther And Ors. on 9 September, 1957
While elaborating Section 17, this Court laid down the
following in para 7 : (Mohd. Yusuf case [Mohd. Yusuf v.
Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 264] , SCC pp. 268-69)
"7. A compromise decree passed by a court would ordinarily
be covered by Section 17(1)(b) but sub-section (2) of Section 17
provides for an exception for any decree or order of a court
except a decree or order expressed to be made on a
compromise and comprising immovable property other than
that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus,
by virtue of sub-section (2)(vi) of Section 17 any decree or
order of a court does not require registration. In sub-clause (vi)
of sub-section (2), one category is excepted from sub-clause
Mohammade Yusuf vs Rajkumar on 5 February, 2020
While elaborating Section 17, this Court laid down the
following in para 7 : (Mohd. Yusuf case [Mohd. Yusuf v.
Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 264] , SCC pp. 268-69)
"7. A compromise decree passed by a court would ordinarily
be covered by Section 17(1)(b) but sub-section (2) of Section 17
provides for an exception for any decree or order of a court
except a decree or order expressed to be made on a
compromise and comprising immovable property other than
that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. Thus,
by virtue of sub-section (2)(vi) of Section 17 any decree or
order of a court does not require registration. In sub-clause (vi)
of sub-section (2), one category is excepted from sub-clause
Phool Patti And Anr vs Ram Singh(Dead)Through Lrs. & Anr on 31 March, 2009
Ram Singh [Phool Patti v. Ram Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 22] and
the matter was thus referred to a larger Bench.
K. Raghunandan & Ors vs Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors on 14 May, 2008
In K. Raghunandan case [K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain
Sabir, (2008) 13 SCC 102] , the dispute was not amongst the
family members but between neighbours regarding right over
passage. Obviously, none of them had any pre-existing right
over the immovable property in question.