Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
Sumatibai Waman Kirtikar vs Anant Balkrishna Shirgaonkar on 22 February, 1949 cites

Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi vs Midnapur Zemindari Company Ltd. on 6 July, 1914

6. In taking the view that a consent decree can operate as a lease we are accepting the view taken by the other High Courts in India and also a view which in our opinion is implicit in a decision of the Privy Council. We will first refer to the decision of the Privy Council that is reported in Hemanta Kumari Debt v. Midnapur Zamindari Company (1019) L.R. 46 I.A. 240 : s. c. 22 Bom. L.R. 488. The Privy Council was considering a suit, filed for the specific performance of an agreement which was embodied in a compromise decree, and the question was whether that compromise decree required registration or not. The plaintiff's contention was that the compromise decree was an agreement to lease and he had filed the suit to enforce that agreement. The Privy Council held that the decree did not require registration because according to their Lordships the decree did not create a present and immediate interest in the land; there was no present demise and the lease was to be given only on a contingency happening and therefore the compromise decree did not embody or operate as a lease as required by the Registration Act. Now what is very significant and what is important to note is that in the whole of the judgment the Privy Council proceeded on the assumption that a compromise decree could operate as a lease. But for the assumption it would have been entirely unnecessary to consider the various points that their Lordships considered. The short answer to the defendant's contention would have been that a consent decree cannot operate as a lease and therefore the question of registration did not arise.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 115 - Full Document
1