Back
1965 Supreme(Pat) 37
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai, J.
Rampeare Singh
Versus
Sm.Ramkali Devi
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 83 of 1963 ;
Decided On : MARCH 30, 1965
A compromise decree relating to immovable property that is not the subject-matter of the suit is not admissible in evidence if it is not registered.
Headnote:
REGISTRATION ACT - COMPULSORY REGISTRATION - SECTION 17(1)(B), 17(2)(VI), 49(C) - COMPROMISE DECREE RELATING TO IMMOVABLE PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT-MATTER OF SUIT - NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of a house, alleging that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 7 in favor of defendants 1 to 3 was fraudulent and illegal. The plaintiffs also claimed that a compromise in a previous suit (Title Suit No. 12 of 1945) barred defendant No. 7 from alienating the house.
Finding of the Court:
The lower courts dismissed the suit, holding that the compromise in Title Suit No. 12 of 1945 was not binding as it was not registered and that defendant No. 7 had the right to alienate the house under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Issues: Whether the compromise in Title Suit No. 12 of 1945 was admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The compromise decree was not admissible in evidence because it related to the house in suit, which was not the subject-matter of the suit. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act requires compulsory registration of instruments that purport to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property. Section 17(2)(vi) exempts decrees or orders of a court from compulsory registration, but only if they relate to the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding. Since the compromise decree in this case related to the house in suit, which was not the subject-matter of the suit, it was compulsorily registrable. Under Section 49(c) of the Registration Act, a document that is required to be compulsorily registered cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting the property or conferring a power.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld.
Kamla Sahai, J.
1. This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit for declaration of title to and confirmation or, in the alternative recovery of possession over a house standing on plot No. 43, in Khata No. 46, of village Abdulla Chak. The plaintiffs have also prayed for a declaration that the sale deed executed by Mt. Moti Kuer, defendant No. 7 (who died during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court), in favour of defendants nos. 1 to 3, on the 5th November, 1959, is fraudulent, illegal, without consideration and without legal necessity.
2. The plaintiffs have also alleged that plaintiff No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 1945 for declaration that certain alienations made by Mt. Moti Kuer were illegal and were not binding upon the reversioners; and that suit was compromised, one of the terms of the compromise being that Moti Kuer would cease to have any right or title in the suit-house except the right of residence during her lifetime.
3. The defendants raised several pleas including this that the compromise with regard to the suit-house was not binding as the property was worth more than Rs. 100 and the compromise was compulsorily registrable under Sec.17 of the Indian Registration Act.
4. The Munsif, who tried the suit, dismissed it. Before learned Additional Subordinate Judge V/s. Patna, who heard the appeal, the Munsifs findings that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversioners; that they had not come into possession of the suit-house and that there was a genuine compromise between the parties in Title suit No. 12 of 1945 were not challenged. It was also admitted on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants that the suit-house was not the subject-matter of the suit in Title suit No. 12 of 1945. I may also mention that plaintiff No. 1 examined himself as P. W. 5 in the case and, on being cross-examined, ht admitted that the house in question was not Involved in dispute in Title suit No. 12 of 1945. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge held that, since the compromise was not registered, it did not create any right in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the house in dispute. He further held that; the compromise in respect of the house in question not being binding, Sec.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, conferred absolute proprietary right in respect of it upon Moti Kuer and she could alienate it in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to
5. Hence, he dismissed the appeal.
6. The only point which Mr. Rajeshwari Prasad has argued on behalf of the appellants is that the house in question must be deemed to have been a subject-matter of Title suit No. 12 of 1945, because one of the questions which was in dispute in that case was whether plaintiff No. 1 was the nearest reversioner of Ramprit, the husband of Moti Kuer. In support of this argument, he has relied upon Ramdas Sah V/s. Jagarnath Prasad. AIR 1960 Pat 179.
7. In my opinion, there is no substance in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The question whether plaintiff No. 1 was the reversioner may have been in dispute in Title suit No. 12 of 1945, but the admitted position is that the house in dispute in this case was not a subject-matter of the suit. Sec.17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act lays down, among other things, that all non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, any right, title or interest, must be compulsorily registered. There cannot be the slightest doubt that term No. 5 of the compromise petition seeks to limit or rather, to some extent, to extinguish the right of Moti Kuer to the house in suit as part of the Hindu widows estate which she held on the death of her husband. Subsection (2) of Sec.17, Clause (vi) exempts decree or order of a Court from compulsory registration, but it lays down that a decree or order "on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding" will not be s
