Back
1919 Supreme(SC) 42
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT HALDANE, LORD BUCKMASTER AND LORD DUNEDIN.
RANI HEMANTA KUMARI DEBI - Appellant
Versus
MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARI COMPANY LIMITED - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : July 1, 1919.
Solicitors for appellant:Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitors for respondents: Orr, Dignam & Co.
An agreement to grant a lease upon a contingent event is not an "agreement to lease" requiring registration. If such an agreement is incorporated into a court decree, it is admissible as judicial evidence, even if it concerns property outside the suit's immediate subject matter.
Headnote:(A) Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 2(7), 17(1)(b), 17(1)(d), 17(2)(vi), and 49; Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 - Section 375 - Interpretation of "agreement to lease" - A document that creates a present and immediate interest in land is an "agreement to lease" requiring registration; however, an agreement that a lease would be granted upon the happening of a contingent event at an indeterminate date does not satisfy this meaning and does not require registration.
(B) Admissibility of unregistered agreements incorporated in decrees - A non-testamentary instrument that purports to create a contingent right or interest in immovable property, which would otherwise require registration under Section 17(1)(b), is admissible in evidence if it is incorporated into a decree of a court, as it falls within the exemption provided for decrees and orders of a court under Section 17(2)(vi).
(C) Scope of decree as evidence - A decree that recites a compromise agreement in full is admissible as judicial evidence of the entire agreement, even if the operative part of the decree is limited to the subject matter of the suit and cannot be executed against property outside that scope.
Facts of the case:
In a suit for recovery of land, the parties entered into a compromise agreement. The agreement provided that if the plaintiff succeeded in a separate suit against the government to recover certain lands, the plaintiff would grant a settlement of those lands to the defendant on agreed terms. This agreement was reduced to writing and incorporated into a court decree. After the plaintiff successfully recovered the lands, they refused to grant the settlement. The respondents sought specific performance of the agreement.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the agreement did not effect an actual demise or create an immediate interest, and thus was not an "agreement to lease" requiring registration. While the document created a contingent interest in immovable property, its incorporation into a court decree exempted it from the registration requirements of the Act, making it admissible as evidence of its terms.
Issues: Whether an unregistered agreement to grant a lease upon a contingent event, when incorporated into a court decree, is admissible in evidence, and whether such a decree serves as evidence for terms relating to property outside the immediate scope of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: An "agreement to lease" under the Registration Act must create a present and immediate interest in land. A contingent agreement to lease in the future does not. Furthermore, any agreement incorporated into a court decree is exempt from registration requirements under Section 17(2)(vi) and is admissible as judicial evidence of its contents, regardless of whether the decree is executable against all properties mentioned in the agreement.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court (July 6, 1914) affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Zilla Nadia (March 29, 1910).
Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 240 ( 1918- 1919) Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. Midnapur Zamindari Co. Ltd
82
The suit was brought by the respondents in February, 1909, as successors in interest to Robert Watson & Co., Ld., claiming specific performance of an agreement to lease to that company certain lands if the appellant recovered them in a suit which she had instituted against the Government for that purpose. The agreement was contained in a compromise petition dated September 20, 1897, in a suit (No. 73 of 1895) brought by the appellant against the said company for the recovery of certain other lands. The compromise petition was embodied in a decree of the Court made on the same date under s, 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882.
The facts more fully appear from the judgment of their Lordships.
Numerous issues were framed, two only of which were material to the present appeal, namely, (4.) Whether the Court had jurisdiction to pass any decree or order in regard to lands outside the scope of suit No. 73 of 1895, and whether the recital of the petition of compromise as embodied in clause 8 of the decree, is binding and operative against the defendant in the suit; (5.) Whether clause 8 of the petition of compromise, being not perfected by a registered deed, is admissible in evidence and can operate to affect an interest in immovable property.
The relevant provisions of the Indian Registration Act (XVI. of 1908) appear in the footnote. (Indian Registration Act, 1908, s. 2. " In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or the context, . . . . (7.) lease includes a counterpart, k abuliat, an undertak ing to cultivate or occupy, and an agreement to lease."
Sect. 17, sub-s. 1. " The following documents shall be registered, .... if they have been executed on or after the date on which .... the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or" comes into force, namely—(a) instruments of gift of immovable property ; (b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title, or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of 100 rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property ; . . . . (d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding a year . . . ."; sub-s. 2. " Nothing in clauses (6) and (c) of sub-s. 1 applies to. . . . (vi.) any decree or order of a Court, and any award." Sect.
49. " No document required bys. 17 to be registered shall (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or .... (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property, .... unless it has been registered.")
The Subordinate Judge made a decree for specific performance, which was affirmed by the High Court on appeal. The High Court having refused leave to appeal, special leave was granted by the Judicial Committee.
Mookerjee J. held that since the agreement did not effect an actual demise or operate as a lease, it did not " affect the property " within the meaning of s. 49 of the Act, and that, consequently, that section did not preclude it from being given in evidence although unregistered.
Beachcroft J. held that as the agreement did not effect a demise it was not " an agreement to lease " so as to be required to be registered by s. 17, sub-s. 1 (d) ; and that under s. 17, sub-s. 2 (vi.)the whole of the decree was admissible in evidence.
1019. May 22, 23. Dunne K.C. and Dube for the appellant. The documents relied on to prove the agreement were required to be registered by the Indian Registration Act, and in the absence of registration were by s. 49 inadmissible in evidence. The agreement was an " agreement to lease " and consequently by s. 2 was included in the word "lease1 and was required by s. 17, sub-s. 1 (d),
