Registration Act, 1908: s.17 – Case of appellants was that they were looking after one ‘B’, the sole defendant (owner of the suit property) who was divorced long back and was staying with them – His daughters (respondents) had left with their mother after the divorce and never met him – Sole defendant had executed registered will in favour of appellants and also a family settlement was effected in which suit property was given to the appellants in equal share – Sole defendant in a suit filed by appellants admitted the claim of the appellants that a registered will was executed by him in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellants and also a family settlement was effected in which suit property was given to the appellants in equal share – Suit was decreed on the basis of admission of the sole defendant and after the decree, mutation was effected in favour of the appellants – After the death of the sole defendant, the said decree was challenged by the respondents as null and void on the ground that it was not registered and therefore was not valid decree – Held: The suit was based on pre-existing right and the decree was expressly covered by expression “any decree or order of the Court” under s.17(2)(vi) – Decree and order did not require registration and were fully covered by s.17(2)(vi), which contains exclusion from registration as required in s.17(1) – Sequence of events clearly indicated that the sole defendant of his own volition wanted to give the entire property to the defendants due to the circumstances of the case, in which he was placed – Therefore, the decree cannot be held to be suffering from any fraud or coercion as contended by the respondents. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Suit filed by the appellants against ‘B’ relates to the suit property described in plaint and the decree was passed only with regard to suit property. The decree dated 09.01.1995 was, thus, expressly covered by expression “any decree or order of a Court”. When legislature has specifically excluded applicability of clause (b) and (C) with regard to any decree or order of a Court, applicability of Section 17(1)(b) cannot be imported in Section 17(2)(v) by any indirect method. Decree and order dated 09.01.1995 did not require registration and were fully covered by Section 17(2)(vi), which contains exclusion from registration as required in Section 17(1). High Court as well as First Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that decree dated 19.01.1995 required registration and due to not registered is null and void. [Para 17]
Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466 – held
inapplicable.
Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. v. Rajkumar & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2020 decided on 05.02.2020 – referred to.
2. ‘B’ had executed Will dated 02.09.1986, which was a registered Will and pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint. In paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was also pleaded that pursuant to a Family Settlement dated 15.06.1994 by which ‘B’ decided to allot plaintiffs in equal share and relinquished all his rights in the suit property, which pleadings were admitted by ‘B’ in his statement. The decree was passed on 09.01.1995 on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned on 03.03.1995. ‘B’ was admittedly alive till 24.04.1998 and in his lifetime, he never objected the decree or mutation in favour of the defendants. It has been accepted by the Courts below that ‘B’ and ‘G’ were divorced and which divorce was recorded in writing on 15.09.1973 as proved before the Courts below. ‘G’ after 15.09.1973 along with daughters started living with brother of ‘B’ and thereafter never returned to ‘B’. The Courts have found that ‘B’ lived with the defendants after the divorce, who were taking care of him. The execution of registered Will by ‘B’ on 02.09.1986 in favour of the defendants and further his admission that all the claim of the defendants in Suit No. 556 are correct and accepting that he has relinquished his rights in favour of the respondents clearly disprove any ground of fraud either on the Court or on ‘B’. Sequence of events clearly indicate that ‘B’ of his own volition wanted to give the entire property to the defendants due to the circumstances of the case, in which ‘B’ was placed. There is thus no substance in the submission that any fraud was played in obtaining decree dated 09.01.1995 by the defendants. [Para 20][347-A-C; D-H] Som Dev and Others v. Rati Ram and Another, (2006)
10 SCC 788 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 778 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.