Back
High Court Of Delhi
SARDAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA DEVI - Respondent
Civil 2637 of 1994
Decided On : 04/26/1994
REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 17 - AWARD - COMPULSORY REGISTRATION - EFFECT OF NON-REGISTRATION - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SECTION 20 - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - SECTION 12 - PARTIAL PERFORMANCE - SECTION 10 (B) - ADEQUATE RELIEF - THIRD PERSONS - DUTY TO DISCLOSE - DOUBTFUL TITLE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and his brother, Kartar Lal, purchased a house jointly in 1959. The sale certificate was issued in Kartar Lal's name. A dispute arose between the brothers, and the matter was referred to private arbitration. The arbitrators awarded half of the house to the appellant and half to Kartar Lal. The award was made a rule of the court in 1963. In 1973, Kartar Lal entered into a contract to sell the entire property to the first respondent's husband. The appellant, becoming aware of the contract, got himself impleaded in the suit filed by the first respondent for specific performance of the contract. The trial court and the High Court decreed the suit. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the award was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, as it did not create any new right, title, or interest in the property. The court also held that the decree for specific performance of the entire property was illegal, as the appellant was not a consenting party to the contract. However, the court held that the first respondent was entitled to specific performance of the contract in respect of half the share held by Kartar Lal.
Issues: 1. Whether the award was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908? 2. Whether the decree for specific performance of the entire property was illegal? 3. Whether the first respondent was entitled to specific performance of the contract in respect of half the share held by Kartar Lal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An award is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, if it does not create any new right, title, or interest in the property. 2. A decree for specific performance of a contract cannot be granted if the plaintiff is not a consenting party to the contract. 3. A plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of a contract in respect of half the share held by the defendant, if the defendant has contracted to sell the entire property and the plaintiff is not a consenting party to the contract.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the decree of the High Court was set aside. The decree of the trial court was modified to the extent that the first respondent was entitled to specific performance of the contract in respect of half the share held by Kartar Lal.
( 1 ) WHILE the appellant was in Govt. service, Kartar Lal (first defendant in the suit), his brother had purchased on April 7, 1959 the house No. 313, with land admeasuring 222 sq. yards in Karol Bagh from the Ministry of Rehabilitation. On 22. 1. 63 the sale certificate was issued in favour of Kartar Lal. Finding it exclusively in the name of Kartar Lal, the appellant raised a dispute which was referred to named private arbitrators for resolution. The two Arbitrators by their award dated 16. 10. 63 declared that:
"we award that Shri Sardar Singh is the owner of half house bearing Mun, No. 313. Ward No. XVI situated at Gali No. 10, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, from the date of purchase of the said house, i. e. from 7. 4. 59 as he paid Rs. 18, 100. 00 to Shri Kartar Lal in the shape of claim bonds valued at Rs. 11,560. 00 and Rs. 6,540. 00 in cash towards the purchase price of the said house and Shri Kartar Lal paid half of the price of the said house in the shape of claim bond and cash. The price of the said house was contributed half and half by both of them. Though, the sale deed was taken by Shri Kartar Lal in his name Benami but actually Shri Kartar Lal and Shri Sardar Singh, are the owners of the said house in equal share from the date of its purchase, i. e. from 7. 4. 59 and Shri Sardar Singh, is also entitled to half of the amount of rent of the said house from the date of its purchase after deducting property taxes paid by Shri Kartar Lal. "on an application made u/s. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the appellant, the arbitrators produced the award in Suit No. 299/63 in the Court of the Judge, First Class, Delhi which was made rule of the Court u/s. 17 thereof by decree dated28. 12. 63. The appellant laid proceedings before the Rent Controller for eviction of their tenants for personal occupation on the ground that he being a Govt servant was entitled to possession under special procedure prescribed under that Act and accordingly had possession. Kartar Lal entered into a contract of the entire property with Joginder Nath, husband of the first respondent on 15. 1. 73 for Rs. 90. 000. 00 and had received part consideration. The time to execute the sale deed was extended from time to time upto 31. 12. 79 by which date Joginder Nath died and the first respondent had entered into fresh contract with Kartar Lal and laid the suit in O. S. No. 2/83 against Kartar Lal. The appellant, becoming aware of the contract of sale and pending suit, got himself impleaded in that suit as second defendant. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 5. 5. 1986. On appeal the High Court of Delhi confirmed the decree.
( 2 ) THE Courts below found that the appellant s title is founded upon the award to acquire title to or divest of Kartar Lal; it is compulsorily registerable u/s. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and being an unregistered award the same was inadmissible in evidence as source of title under Sec. 49 thereof. The appellant s claim as owner of the half share in the property was thus negatived. The question, therefore, is whether the award, on the facts and in the circumstances, is compulsorily registerable under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act which reads thus:
"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory :- (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situated in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864 or the Indian Registration Act, 1866 (20 of 1866) or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 (3 of 1877) or this Act came or comes into force, namely : (a) XXX XXX XXX (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 one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property. "
( 3 ) SEC. 49 declares the effect of non-registration that n
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
