1981 Supreme(MP) 364

P. D. Mulye, J.
Harisingh v.Panchubai.
S.A. No. 188 of 1970 (I); Decided on 3-7-1981.

Headnote:Registration Act, 1908 -- S. 17 -- any transfer, creation of interest in immovable property wroth Rs. 100 or mored`registration is necessary-- family settlement-if resulting in transfer of such property -- it is remittable -- no right or interest is acquired without registration.

        This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs, who are brothers, they having lost in both the lower Courts in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit lands.

        Held: The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Panchas had only helped the parties in arriving at a, settlement and that in fact it is the parties themselves who settled the dispute by way of family arrangement is, no doubt, ingenious and attractive, but without any substance. According to the plaintiffs themselves Tulsibai had agreed to relinquish her right, title and interest in the disputed property on receipt of Rs. 2500/- which admittedly were also not paid to Tulsibai and that as a result thereof. the plaintiffs were put to be the sole owners of the disputed land. This type of document which was valued at more than Rs. 100/- obviously required registration.

        A bare perusal of S. 17 of the Registration Act shows that other non-testamentary instruments which purport to create, declare, assign, limit of extinguish whether in present or in future, any right title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- for more has got to be registered, in the present case the document as such is not on record, but from the plaintiffs averment as also the evidence adduced in support thereof clearly shows that as a result of the alleged writing the plaintiff had become the absolute owners of the suit property on account of the relinquishment of her Tights which Tulsibai held in the said land as a co-owner. However the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the said agreement amounts to family settlement by which no interest in the property has been created in favour of anyone and thus does not require registration as it was nothing but a memorandum of family settlement, which does not require registration.

        However, I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contention as in my opinion, it clearly creates an interest in the disputed property in favour of the plaintiffs. Even in the case of family settlement what has to be seen is that where under the family settlement there has been any transfer of property or not and in case there has been any transfer of property the same would require registration and for want of registration no right title and interest as such passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, in a case in which absolute title is being claimed to the property the formalities of law about the passing of title by transfer would have to be observed and registration would become necessary and the finding recorded by the two Courts below on the aforesaid question, in my opinion, does not suffer from any error of law requiring interference in his second appeal. Appeal dismissed.