SOM DEV Vs. RATI RAM
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-10
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 06,2006
SOM DEV
Appellant
VERSUS
RATI RAM
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MANGAN LAL DEOSHI VS. MOHAMMAD MOINUL HUQUE [REFERRED TO]BHOOP SINGH VS. RAM SINGH MAJOR [REFERRED TO]
S NOORDEEN VS. V S THIRU VENKITA REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MADANLAL VS. JAIN BROTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-98] [REFERRED TO]M. BASKAR VS. SUB-REGISTRAR, PADAPPAI, SRIPERAMBUDUR TALUK, KANCHIPURAM DISTRICT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2014-12-288] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT KUMAR SETH VS. S R SETH [LAWS(DLH)-2008-4-262] [REFERRED]
RAVI KANT JAJODIA & ORS VS. MAHARAJ KUMAR SADAY CHAND MAHATAB & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2018-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
NAWAB MIR BARKAT ALI KHAN WALESHAN BAHADUR VS. PRINCESS MANOLYA JAH, DULKADIR SOKAK, ADALI CIKMAZI NO 9, ARNAVUTKOY, ISTANBUL, TURKEY & ANOTHER [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-40] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP & ORS VS. STATE & OTHERS [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-640] [REFERRED]
BRAHM SINGH AND ORS. VS. NISHA RANI [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-327] [REFERRED TO]
ATUL CHOPRA VS. TECHNOTREE CORPORATION [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-116] [REFERRED TO]
OSHIWARA LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-342] [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL VS. MANJIT KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2020-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMADE YUSUF VS. RAJKUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2020-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
VALLEY IRON & STEEL COMPANY LTD. VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-10-46] [REFERRED TO]
P.CHIDAMBARAM VS. CHELLIAH [LAWS(MAD)-2021-1-444] [REFERRED TO]
SH. HARENDRA PAL SINGH THE LRS. AND OTHERS VS. RISHI PAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-198] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SATARDEKAR VS. JOE MATHIAS [LAWS(BOM)-2010-9-125] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA SHARMA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-631] [REFERRED]
BASHIR-UDDIN VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-418] [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL RATHORE & ANR VS. W H DEETH (BALLABGARH) & CO & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-5-326] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH GULERIA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2020-10-109] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAPPA VS. M/S.REMCO (BHEL) HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LTD. [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
GHAN SHYAM SHARMA VS. RAJ. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHI RAM VS. NAWAL SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2021-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
SH. FATEH SINGH VS. SH. TOHAL SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-7-356] [REFERRED]
VALSAN JEROME S/O ROCKEY VS. ROCKEY S/O ANTHAPPAN AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2010-9-383] [REFERRED TO]
K.M.RAMANATHAN VS. RENGASAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-119] [REFERRED TO]
BHAG SINGH VS. GURMAIL KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2007-9-170] [REFERRED TO]
CHAND KAUR VS. MANI RAM [LAWS(P&H)-2019-5-468] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUR (SINCE DECEASED) VS. GURDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-420] [REFERRED TO]
K RAGHUNANDAN VS. ALI HUSSAIN SABIR [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAJ ALI MOLLA VS. MADAN MOHAN SAHA [LAWS(CAL)-2010-8-112] [REFERRED TO]
MASARATH JAHAN BEGUM VS. MASOOD HASHIM ALI [LAWS(APH)-2010-10-85] [REFERRED TO]
ABHIMANYU VS. KANHAIYA [LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
BALAN NAMBIAR M K V VS. SANKARA KURUP T [LAWS(KER)-2013-11-160] [REFERRED TO]
BIJA RAM ALIAS BIJA VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-136] [REFERRED TO]
V. NAGAMMAL VS. PALANISAMY @ KANNARAISU [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-308] [REFERRED TO]
KHUSHI RAM VS. NAWAL SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-4-124] [REFERRED TO]
GURCHARAN SINGH VS. ANGREZ KAUR [LAWS(SC)-2020-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
BANKEY LAL VS. RAMANAND GUPTA [LAWS(PAT)-2011-3-14] [REFERRED TO]
JAI NARAIN MATHUR AND ORS. VS. JAI PRAKASH MATHUR [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
RITA CHAKRABORTY VS. KALIDAS BHATTACHARJEE [LAWS(CAL)-2014-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHIKANT NATVARLAL PATEL VS. ARVINDBHAI BHUPATBHAI GOHIL [LAWS(GJH)-2009-11-56] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR VS. ROHIT MADAN & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL OBEROI VS. SHEELA OBEROI & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-595] [REFERRED TO]
TEJA SINGH VS. JARNAIL KAUR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-348] [REFERRED TO]
AMRO DEVI VS. JULFI RAM (DECEASED) [LAWS(SC)-2024-7-54] [REFERRED TO]
P. GANAPATHI AND ORS. VS. S. BALASARASWATHI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-39] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA HINDI PRACHAR SABHA VS. JOSEPH [LAWS(KER)-2010-9-127] [REFERRED TO]
URMILA DEVI VS. MOTOR VEHICLE CLAIM TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
LATE SH HARENDRA PAL SINGH THE LRS & ORS. VS. RISHI PAL SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2017-10-20] [REFERRED TO]
SURINDER SINGH VS. NARINDER SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
ABDULLAH KHAN VS. INTEZAR KHAN [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
ING VYSYA BANK LTD. VS. VIKRAM HINGORANI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-206] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR KALI VS. INCHHA (INCHA) [LAWS(P&H)-2023-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
RANBIR SINGH VS. INDRAJ SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2008-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWARI VS. HANS KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-138] [REFERRED TO]
R.P. PALIWAL VS. CHAMPOL ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(P&H)-2006-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN VS. GUGAN [LAWS(P&H)-2022-8-151] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALJIT SINGH NAGRA VS. PARAMJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2018-1-357] [REFERRED TO]
JORA SINGH VS. SUKHDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2009-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA MATHA BUILDING CONSTRUCTIONS CO OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD VS. SADA YELLAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2010-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. RADHESH SINGH VS. VINEET SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-561] [REFERRED TO]
INDER KUMAR KATHURIA VS. KRISHNA KUMAR KATHURIA [LAWS(DLH)-2013-10-439] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUPATI R BHANDARI VS. COMUNIDADE OF BANDORA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-79] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNOOTTAM KUZHIYIL VAYALOLI BALAN NAMBIAR VS. THEKKEDATH SANKARA KURUP [LAWS(KER)-2013-11-81] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
This Appeal is by the contesting defendants in a suit filed by Respondent No.1 herein for recovery of possession of the suit property in enforcement of a right of pre-emption claimed by him. The plaintiff claimed that a half share in the suit property had been relinquished in favour of himself and his brother by Sheoram a co-owner with the assignor of the contesting defendants and the said relinquishment had been recognised by the court by decreeing the claim made by the present plaintiff and his brother in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980. Thus, having become a co-owner with the assignor of the contesting defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce a right of pre-emption and recover possession of the property from the assignee of the other co-owner. The contesting defendants resisted the suit. The contention germane to this appeal that was raised by the contesting defendants was that a right was created in the present plaintiff by the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 which was one based on a compromise and since the decree purported to create a right in the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre-existing right, the compromise decree required registration in terms of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act and the decree not having been registered, the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the alleged right of pre-emption as against the contesting defendants or their assignor, the other co-owner.
(2.)The trial court held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was enforceable even without registration as it was not hit by Section 17(1) of the Registration Act; that the said decree had recognised the right claimed by the plaintiff and in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession from the assignee of the other co-owner in enforcement of his right of pre-emption. On appeal, the lower appellate court affirmed this view of the trial court. The lower appellate court also held that what was involved in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was a family arrangement and since a bona fide family arrangement among the members of a family in the larger sense of the term, did not require registration, no objection could be raised by the contesting defendants to the enforceability of the title claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the decree of the trial court was affirmed. The contesting defendants filed a second appeal. They raised the substantial question of law that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 created rights in favour of the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre-existing right and such a decree, to become enforceable, required registration. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others 1995 (S3) SCR 466 in support. The High Court held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was based on a family settlement which did not require registration and that the decree itself did not require registration in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Thus, the substantial question of law formulated was answered in favour of the plaintiff, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were confirmed and the second appeal filed by the contesting defendants was dismissed. It is challenging this decision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave is filed by the contesting defendants.
(3.)Before proceeding to consider the question argued before us, we think that it is proper to notice that the case arises from the State of Haryana which was originally a part of the State of Punjab and that the Transfer of Property Act as such did not apply to the State. But, Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act were made applicable to the State of Punjab with effect from 01.04.1955 vide notification dated 23.03.1955. As is clear, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act relates to a sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards, Section 107 deals with leases of immovable property and Section 123 indicates how the transfer of immovable property by way of gift is to be effected. It insists that for making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument singed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. One other aspect to be noted is the introduction of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Registration Act made prospective from the date of coming into force of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 insisting that documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, shall be registered if they have been created after the commencement of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Leave granted.
This Appeal is by the contesting defendants in a suit filed by Respondent No.1 herein for recovery of possession of the suit property in enforcement of a right of pre-emption claimed by him. The plaintiff claimed that a half share in the suit property had been relinquished in favour of himself and his brother by Sheoram a co-owner with the assignor of the contesting defendants and the said relinquishment had been recognised by the court by decreeing the claim made by the present plaintiff and his brother in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980. Thus, having become a co-owner with the assignor of the contesting defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce a right of pre-emption and recover possession of the property from the assignee of the other co-owner. The contesting defendants resisted the suit. The contention germane to this appeal that was raised by the contesting defendants was that a right was created in the present plaintiff by the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 which was one based on a compromise and since the decree purported to create a right in the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre-existing right, the compromise decree required registration in terms of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act and the decree not having been registered, the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the alleged right of pre-emption as against the contesting defendants or their assignor, the other co-owner.
(2.)The trial court held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was enforceable even without registration as it was not hit by Section 17(1) of the Registration Act; that the said decree had recognised the right claimed by the plaintiff and in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession from the assignee of the other co-owner in enforcement of his right of pre-emption. On appeal, the lower appellate court affirmed this view of the trial court. The lower appellate court also held that what was involved in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was a family arrangement and since a bona fide family arrangement among the members of a family in the larger sense of the term, did not require registration, no objection could be raised by the contesting defendants to the enforceability of the title claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the decree of the trial court was affirmed. The contesting defendants filed a second appeal. They raised the substantial question of law that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 created rights in favour of the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre-existing right and such a decree, to become enforceable, required registration. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Ram Singh Major and others 1995 (S3) SCR 466 in support. The High Court held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was based on a family settlement which did not require registration and that the decree itself did not require registration in view of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Thus, the substantial question of law formulated was answered in favour of the plaintiff, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were confirmed and the second appeal filed by the contesting defendants was dismissed. It is challenging this decision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave is filed by the contesting defendants.
(3.)Before proceeding to consider the question argued before us, we think that it is proper to notice that the case arises from the State of Haryana which was originally a part of the State of Punjab and that the Transfer of Property Act as such did not apply to the State. But, Sections 54, 107 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act were made applicable to the State of Punjab with effect from 01.04.1955 vide notification dated 23.03.1955. As is clear, Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act relates to a sale of immovable property of the value of Rs.100/- and upwards, Section 107 deals with leases of immovable property and Section 123 indicates how the transfer of immovable property by way of gift is to be effected. It insists that for making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument singed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. One other aspect to be noted is the introduction of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Registration Act made prospective from the date of coming into force of the Registration and Other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 insisting that documents containing contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property for the purpose of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, shall be registered if they have been created after the commencement of sub-section (1A) of Section 17 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.