HAPPELL
S. KR. M. Subramanyam Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Meyyammai Achi – Respondent
Happell, J.
1. The appellant was the first defendant in a suit in which the first respondent was the second plaintiff having been added as the legal representative of the first plaintiff after his death, for an injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the right of way over a lane and for a direction that the appellant should demolish a dust bin which he had put up in the lane at his own cost. The right of way, it was alleged was conveyed to the first respondent under the dead Ex. C, for a consideration of Rs. 175. Ex. C is an unregistered document and it was contended by the appellant that it required registration and was accordingly inadmissible in evidence. The lower Courts, following the decisions in Bhagwan Sahai v. Narasingh Sahai I.L.R. (1909) All. 612 and in Satyanarayanamurti v. Lakshmayya (1928) 57 MLJ. 46 held that the deed Ex. C did not require registration. Substantially the only question in this-second appeal is whether Ex. C did or did not require to be registered. In Bhagwan Sahai v. Narasingh Sahai I.L.R. (1909) All. 612 and in Satyanarayanamurti v. Lakshmayya (1928) 57 MLJ. 46 in which Madhavan Nair, J., followed the decision of the Allahab
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.