Back
2005 Supreme(P&H) 1038
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Kumar, J.
Nirmal Singh (Deceased) Through L.Rs.
Versus
Kartar Singh (Deceased) Through L.Rs.
Regular Second Appeal No. 1040 of 1990,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a compromise-deed executed during the pendency of a Civil Suit can be considered as part of the Court's order and qualify for exemption from registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, if it becomes part of the judgment and decree.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Appeal - Section 100 - Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(2)(vi)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming ownership of a land based on a compromise dated 15.2.1957. The trial Court dismissed the suit, but the lower Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the compromise deserved to be decreed.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Appellate Court reversed the trial Court's decision, stating that the compromise was binding and admissible in evidence. It concluded that the suit was disposed of in view of the submissions of the parties and the compromise, making the compromise part of the judgment and decree.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compromise-deed executed during the pendency of the Civil Suit could be considered as part of the Court's order and qualify for exemption from registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the compromise became part of the judgment and decree, and therefore, exempt from registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act. It emphasized that the compromise was before the Court and was referred to in the order, making it binding and admissible in evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower Appellate Court was upheld.
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This is defendants appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code), challenging the view taken by the learned lower Appellate Court in its judgment and decree dated 2.3.1990. The view taken by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Kartar Singh has been reversed. It has been held by the lower Appellate Court that suit of plaintiff-respondent deserves to be decreed by taking into consideration the compromise dated 15.2.1957, which was the basis of decree dated 15.2.1957 passed in Civil Suit No.209 instituted on 8.5.1956. The lower Appellate Court also took the view that such a judgment and decree of the Court is covered by Sub-clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity, the Act).The aforementioned judgment and decree (Exh.PW-3/1 Dated 15.2.1957 and also the compromise-deed (Exh.P-1) dated 15.02.1957 were not accepted by the trial Court on the ground that the, compromise (Exh.P-1) was not genuine and the judgment and decree (Exh. PW-3/1) required registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act.
2. Facts in brief are that Phula Singh was son of Ganda Singh. He was owner of the suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint. On 18.4.1952, he mortgaged the land in favour of one Lachhman Singh son of Harnam Singh for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. The period of mortgage fixed between the parties was 18 years. The defendant-appellants are the predecessors-in-interest of aforementioned Lachhman Singh. On 25.4.1955, Phula Singh had also executed a sale-deed regarding the suit land and a Haveli existing over it, in favour of Lachhman Singh for a sale consideration of Rs.8,000/-. However, two collaterals of Phula Singh filed Civil Suit No.209 for declaration on 8.5.1956 to the effect that mortgage deed dated 18.4.1952 and sale deed dated 25.4.1955 in favour of Lachhman Singh could not adversely affect their reversionary rights. On 15.2.1957, a compromise (Exh,P-l) was entered into between different collaterals, which included plaintiff-respondent Kartar Singh regarding the suit land. As a consequence, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn vide order of the trial Judge (Exh.PW-3/1) passed on 15,2.1957. According to terms of the compromise, one half share of the property was to go to Pritam Singh son of Buta Singh, Kartar Singh son of Chanan Singh (plaintiff-re-spondents)and the other half was given to Ganga Singh son of Labh Singh, Harnam Singh son of Lal Singh and Lachhman Singh son of Harnam Singh.
3. Kartar Singh son of Chanan Singh, plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No.234 of 1983 on 8.6.1983, from which the instant appeal has arisen, claiming a declaration to the effect that he is owner to the extent of half share of suit land on the basis of compromise dated 15.2.1957 (Ex.P-1), which is the basis of order dated 15.2.1957 (Exh.PW-3/1). He claims possession of his share by partition. He has also claimed the share of Pritam Singh son of Buta Singh who had died by asserting that the suit land has been allotted in consolidation in lieu of the land, which was mortgaged and later sold by Phula Singh.
4. The trial Court dismissed the suit by recording the findings that the plaintiff-respondent was not proved to be owner of the suit land. In support of all those findings, numerous reasons have been recorded in para 8 of the judgment which read as under: -
(a) Civil Suit No.209 dated 08.05.1956 was dismissed by the Civil Judge without referring to the compromise and terms of the compromise could not be construed have been incorporated in order of the Court sc as to attract the exception created by Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act.
(b) The plaintiff-respondent failed to show that Harnam Singh was collateral of Phula Singh, because nothing was evident from the Shajra Nasab (Exh.P-7). c) The order dated 15,2.1957 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.209 could also not be accepted, becau
