JAYANTILAL MOHANLAL Vs. BAI DAHI ALIAS PUTLIBAI WD O NARSHI RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has raised a small but interesting point of law as to whether the document which ultimately refers to the share in an amount is required to be registered merely because that share emanates from the share in the property which was to be sold proceeds realised and distributed.

(2.) It is an admitted position that the present petitioner Jayantilal Mohanlal Narsinh Ramji (predecessor of opponent no. 1) and Ruda Kana opponent no. 2 entered into an agreement at Talaja. that there was a transaction for the sale of Wadi between Pandya Jayantilal Mohanlal (present petitioner) and Sagar Hariram which was canceled by Sagar Hariram and Narsinh Ramji decided to purchase that Wadi and petitioner Jayantilal had no objection against that and there is no right title or interest of Jayantilal so far as that is concerned and to which Jayantilal has agreed. I would not refer to in details because the entire case is based on one Kabulat or agreement on which the suit is filed. The agreement was that after the sale proceeds were realised by the opponents deducting the expenses the entire amount was to be distributed in three shares. As no amount was paid to Jayantilal he filed a suit fortunates and realisation of the amount on the basis of agreement dated 1-6-1967. During the deposition of Jayantilal (present petitioner) he proposed to produce that document of Kabulat as an evidence in support of his case to get the amount after the accounts are settled. This was objected to on the ground that it creates interest in the immovable property and therefore it is required to be compulsory registered under sec. 17 of the Registration Act 1908 (here in after referred to as the Act). This objection prevailed with the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Bhavnagar and therefore he refused to exhibit that document which is mark 4/4.

(3.) Mr. N. N. Gandhi learned Advocate for the petitioner took me through the entire document and showed to me that in fact it does not create any right title or interest in the property nor does it declare assign limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable property as required by sec. 17 of the Act to which the learned trial Judge has made reference.