SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(All) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. Khanna, J.
DHARAMPAL GIR - Appellant
Versus
ANGOORI DEVI - Respondents
Second Appeal 2126 Of 1973
Decided On : 01/13/1981

Advocates Appeared:
B.A.Madhyan, S.N.AGARWAL

An agreement creating an interest in property in favor of another person requires registration under Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act.

Headnote:

INDIAN REGISTRATION ACT - SECTION 17(B) - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY - FAMILY SETTLEMENT - AGREEMENT CREATING INTEREST IN PROPERTY - REGISTRATION REQUIRED - PERSONAL COVENANT RUNNING WITH PROPERTY - NOT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating certain properties. The defendant claimed that she had executed a deed agreeing not to transfer the property in her lifetime, but that the deed was inadmissible in evidence as it was unregistered. The trial court and lower appellate court dismissed the suit, holding that the agreement was inadmissible.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the agreement required registration under Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act, as it created an interest in the property in favor of the plaintiff. The Court found that the agreement was not a family settlement where there was antecedent title in the parties and only a relinquishment of claim, but rather a creation of interest in favor of the plaintiff by the defendant.

Issues: Whether the agreement executed by the defendant, agreeing not to transfer the property in her lifetime, required registration under Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agreement required registration under Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act, as it created an interest in the property in favor of the plaintiff. The Court found that the agreement was not a family settlement where there was antecedent title in the parties and only a relinquishment of claim, but rather a creation of interest in favor of the plaintiff by the defendant.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal, holding that the agreement required registration and was inadmissible in evidence.

V. K. KHANNA, J.


( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for restraining the defendant by means of a permanent injunction from alienating the properties detailed at the foot of the plaint.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs case one Narottam Gir had half share in plots Nos. 24l measuring 3 bighas 5 Biswas and 599 measuring 5 Biswas situate in Sikandrabad, district Bulandshahr. The aforesaid Narottam Gir had four sons, namely, Dharampal Gir, Parmeshwari Dayal Gir, the two plaintiffs, Madan Gir, the deceased husband of defendant-respondent, Smt. Angoori Devi, and pooran Gir. Madan Gir husband of defendant-respondent Smt. Angoori Devi, pre-deceased his father Narottam Gir and after his death Smt. Angoori Devi, defendant-respondent, went away to her parents place. Defendant-respondent, Smt. Angoori Devi however, came again to the plaintiffs house after the death of Narottam Gir, The name of the defendant-respondent was got mutated in village record for her consolation even though she had no share in the property and the defendant-respondent in turn agreed that she would not transfer the property in her lifetime for which she executed a deed on 26-12-1968. The plaintiffs alleged that in defiance of the aforesaid undertaking, she is now threatening to transfer the property over which her name had been mutated as a consolation. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was, therefore, filed for a permanent injunction restraining her from transferring this property to any one.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that her husband had died subsequent to the death of his father. It was also pleaded that she had never executed any deed limiting her right not to transfer the property in her lifetime and that the aforesaid deed had been obtained by fraud and undue influence. It was also pleaded that the deed of agreement was inadmissible in evidence.

( 4 ) THE trial court held that the husband of the defendant-respondent had not pre-deceased his father. It also found that the defendant-respondent had executed a deed by which she had agreed not to transfer her property in her lifetime and that after her death the property was to go to the brothers of her husband. However, the trial court held that the agreement being unregistered was inadmissible and thus did not confer any rights upon the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiffs filed an appeal which has also been dismissed.

( 5 ) A bare perusal of the lower appellate courts judgment would show that the plaintiffs before the lower appellate court have not challenged the findings recorded by the trial court in respect of the question as to whether Madan Gir had pre-deceased Narottam Gir. Regarding the execution of the agreement a finding has been recorded in favour of the plaintiffs that the defendant-respondent did execute the agreement (Exhibit 2 ). The only question which was agitated before the lower appellate court was as to whether the agreement, Exhibit 2, was admissible in evidence or not.


( 6 ) SECTION 17 of the Indian Registration Act details tha instruments which require registration. Section 17 (b) of the Act provides:--

"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 immoveable property. "

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has firstly urged that the Agreement (Ext. 2) amounts to a family settlement by which no interest in the property has been created in favour of any one and this does not require registration under Section 17 (b) of the Indian Registration Act. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel, A bare perusal of sub-section (b) of Section 17 of the Registration Act shows that other non-testamentary instruments which p








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top