Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)Musammat Jagrani Misrain vs Bisheshar Dube And Ors. on 24 March, 1916
5. It is common ground that the property falling to the share of the appellant was worth more than Rs. 100/-. It is not disputed on behalf of the appellant and I think rightly that the compromise application required registration under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, for it declared the parties to be absolute owners of their shares (See Mt. Jagrani v. Bisheshar Dube, 14 All LJ 449 : (AIR 1916 All 1) (FB); Ramgopal v. Tulsi Ram, 26 A11 LJ 952 : (AIR 1928 All 641) (FB); Mt. Mahadei Kunwar v. Padarath Chaube, 1937 All LJ 627 : (AIR 1937 All 578) (FB). Not being registered it is ineffective and inadmissible in evidence.
Ramgopal vs Tulshi Ram And Anr. on 3 July, 1928
5. It is common ground that the property falling to the share of the appellant was worth more than Rs. 100/-. It is not disputed on behalf of the appellant and I think rightly that the compromise application required registration under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, for it declared the parties to be absolute owners of their shares (See Mt. Jagrani v. Bisheshar Dube, 14 All LJ 449 : (AIR 1916 All 1) (FB); Ramgopal v. Tulsi Ram, 26 A11 LJ 952 : (AIR 1928 All 641) (FB); Mt. Mahadei Kunwar v. Padarath Chaube, 1937 All LJ 627 : (AIR 1937 All 578) (FB). Not being registered it is ineffective and inadmissible in evidence.
Mt. Mahadei Kunwar vs Padarath Chaube And Anr. on 29 April, 1937
5. It is common ground that the property falling to the share of the appellant was worth more than Rs. 100/-. It is not disputed on behalf of the appellant and I think rightly that the compromise application required registration under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, for it declared the parties to be absolute owners of their shares (See Mt. Jagrani v. Bisheshar Dube, 14 All LJ 449 : (AIR 1916 All 1) (FB); Ramgopal v. Tulsi Ram, 26 A11 LJ 952 : (AIR 1928 All 641) (FB); Mt. Mahadei Kunwar v. Padarath Chaube, 1937 All LJ 627 : (AIR 1937 All 578) (FB). Not being registered it is ineffective and inadmissible in evidence.
Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd. on 6 July, 1914
6. The Sub Divisional Officer, to whom the application was presented, passed a monomial order, 'approved', and thereafter the names of the parties were mutated in village records. The primary question is whether that order embodies the entire terms of the compromise application. An order, which explicity records the entire compromise application, poses no problem (See Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd. 46 Ind App 240 : (AIR 1919 PC 70)) but an ambiguous order needs judicial exposition as to what it does and what it omits to do (See Pranal Ann v. Lakshmi Anni, ILR 22 Mad 508 (PC)).
1