Ripudaman Singh vs Tikka Maheshwar Chand

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

6 July 2021

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2021

Result

Allowed

Bench

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2021] 6 S.C.R. 562 : 2021 INSC 320

Headnote

Registration Act, 1908: s.17(2)(vi) – Parties to dispute are brothers – Suit for possession disputing Will – Compromise decree between brothers – Whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement between the brothers required compulsory registration in terms of s.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act – Held: As heir of deceased-father, the plaintiff-appellant had a right in the estate left by the deceased – Therefore, it was not a new right being created for the first time when the parties entered into a compromise before the civil court rather an pre-existing right in the property was recognized by way of settlement in court proceedings – Compromise entered between the parties before the trial court leading to decree included land which was not subject matter of suit – Compromise decree can be passed even if the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise of satisfaction is not the same as the subject-matter of the suit in terms of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Therefore, the compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus a legal settlement – Where the decree has been passed in respect of family property, clause (vi) of sub-section 2 of s.17 of the Registration Act would be applicable – The principle is based on the fact that family settlement only declares the rights which are already possessed by the parties – Compromise was between the two brothers consequent to death of their father and no right was being created in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory registration.

Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others (1995) 5 SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466 – relied on.

Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (1976)3 SCC 119:[1976] 3 SCR 202;

Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and Others (2020) 9 SCC 706; K. Raghunandan and Others v. Ali Hussain Sabir and Others (2008) 13 SCC

102:[2008] 8 SCR 657; Phool Patti and Another v. Ram Singh (Dead) Through LRs. and Another (2009) 13 SCC 22:[2009] 5 SCR 362; Phool Patti and Another v. Ram Singh (Dead) Through LRs. and Another (2015) 3 SCC

465 – referred to

The following Order of the Court was passed : ORDER Leave granted. 1. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 28.10.2006 whereby appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit for declaration challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings was dismissed. 2. The parties herein are the two sons of late Vijendra Singh. The appellant filed a suit for possession in the year 1978 disputing the Will dated 04.12.1958 executed in favour of the defendant. The appellant claimed half share of the land as described in th

View Subscription Plans →