PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Mettu Hanimi Reddy S/o. Appireddy – Appellant
Versus
Mettu Govindareddy S/o. Appireddy – Respondent
ORDER :
Challenge in this civil revision petition is to the docket order dated 23.07.2012 passed in O.S.No.146 of 2007 by the learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Guntur, whereby the objection raised by the petitioner herein/plaintiff in the suit regarding admissibility of compromise decree dated 21.12.1944 passed in O.S.No.267 of 1944 on the file of District Munsif Court, Guntur, in evidence in the present suit, on the ground that it was not registered, was rejected and the said compromise decree was admitted in evidence.
2. The objection as to the admissibility of compromise decree dated 21.12.1944 in O.S.No.267 of 1944 appears to have been raised on the ground that the said compromise decree comprises property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit, and thus, in terms of Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, ‘the Act of 1908’), the said compromise decree is compulsorily registerable and without registration, the said decree is not admissible in evidence and cannot be marked as an exhibit.
3. Mr. P. Girish Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff, would draw the attention of this Court to the suit sc
C. Prabbn Rajarao v. Ch. Thirupathamma reported in 1988 (1) ALT 842
G. Sanjeeva Reddy (died) per L.Rs. v. Indukuru Lakshmamma reported in 2001 (4) ALT 490
Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in AIR 1976 SC 807
K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain Sabir reported in (2008) 13 SCC 102
Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham reported in AIR 1966 SC 1836
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.