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

1995 Supreme(SC) 900

K.RAMASWAMY, B.L.HANSARIA
Bhoop Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ram Singh Major – Respondent


Advocates:
D.V.Sehgal, M.K.Dua, MONICA AGRAWAL

Judgement

HANSARIA, J.:- The petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit out of which the present special leave petition arises. The plaintiffs are heirs of one Nand Ram, who is one of the five sons of one Jeevan Ram. The petitioner belongs to the branch of Rakha Ram, another son of Jeevan Ram. Ganpat was a son of Nanha Ram, still another son of Jeevan Ram.

2. The petitioner filed, at one point of time, suit No. 215 of 1973 which came to be disposed of on 6-4-1973 as below :

"it is ordered that a declaratory decree in respect of the property in suit fully detailed in the heading of the plaint to the effect that the plaintiff will be the owners in possession from today in lieu of the defendant after his death and the plaintiff deserves his name to be incorporated as such in the revenue papers, is granted in facuur of the plaintiff against the defendant, in view of the written statement filed by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff to be correct. Pleaders fee fixed Rs. 16/-. It is further ordered that there is no order as to costs."

(Emphasis supplied) 198

Thereafter nothing much happened, till the present suit was filed claiming one-third share in the suit land as heir

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

No cases in the provided list are explicitly identified as overruled, reversed, abrogated, or otherwise treated as bad law. All references treat the cases (primarily *Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major*) as good law, with positive or neutral citations.

The vast majority of cases overwhelmingly cite and follow *Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major* (various citations: JT 1995 (6) SC 534, AIR 1996 SC 196, (1995) 5 SCC 709) as authoritative precedent on the registrability of compromise decrees under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. This case is repeatedly relied upon, approved, and its ratio applied.

Examples (representative snippets):

Deepa VS Shrimati Bhani (Died) Through L. Rs. - 1995 0 Supreme(P&H) 1448: "The ratio of the Division Bench judgment has been recently considered by the apex Court in Bhoop Singh v...."

S. Noordeen VS V. S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar - 1996 2 Supreme 395: "This Court in Bhoop Singh v.... has considered the question whether a compromise decree is compulsorily registerable."

Chand Kaur VS Raj Kaur - 1996 0 Supreme(P&H) 1120: Quotes holding from *Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major* as controlling.

Babu Ram VS Kundan - 1996 0 Supreme(P&H) 1364: "Learned counsel... relied upon Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major... AIR 1996 Supreme Court 196."

Mithilesh Kumar VS Manohar Lal - 1996 8 Supreme 521: "Similarly, this Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major & Ors.... had held..."

Numerous others (e.g., Victor de Graca Pinto and another VS Lourdes de Graca Pinto e Nazareth and another - 1999 0 Supreme(Bom) 40, ANAND DIP SINGH VS RANJIT KAUR - 2000 0 Supreme(Del) 431, Khazani VS Ram Kishan - 2000 0 Supreme(P&H) 1183, BATA INDIA LTD. VS 3rd ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR - 2001 0 Supreme(All) 42, etc.) explicitly state "relied upon," "position of law has been laid down," "principle laid down," "settled by," "upheld," "governs the present case," "laid down that," confirming consistent following and approval across dozens of entries.

K. Raghunandan VS Ali Hussain Sabir - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 889: "*Bhoop Singh*... which has been distinguished in... *Bhoop Singh (supra) was distinguished on fact stating...*"

PHOOL PATTI VS RAM SINGH - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 596: "HOWEVER, a different view was taken by this Court in Bhoop Singh... Prima facie it seems... *Bhoop Singh's case (supra) does not lay down the correct law*..." (implies criticism but primarily distinguishes by taking a different view).

Ranjit Satardekar VS Joe Mathias - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 1299: "*The case of Bhoop Singh... was not referred to...* distinguished implicitly in later cases.

Kala Devi VS Balbir Dass - 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 747: "*The Lorship were satisfied that the decision in Bhoop Singh (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts*."

Skye Earth Developers (P) Ltd. VS M. P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 22: "*the same is distinguishable*."

These entries note factual or contextual differences but do not reject the core holding.

Cases where *Bhoop Singh* is discussed in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions that clarify, explain, or reconcile it without negative treatment:

MOHAMMADE YUSUF VS RAJKUMAR - 2020 2 Supreme 220: High Court "referred to judgment... in Bhoop Singh... Following the above judgment of Bhoop Singh (supra)..."

Gurcharan Singh VS Angrez Kaur - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 281: "had occasion to consider Section 17 as well as judgment of Bhoop Singh (supra)."

Bankey Lal Son Of Late Lekhraj Mahto VS Ramanand Gupta Son Of Late Ram Prasad Lal Gupta - 2011 0 Supreme(Pat) 392: "*The decision rendered in Bhoop Singh (supra) has been considered and clarified by the Apex Court in subsequent decision in Som Dev*."

Harendra Pal Singh The Lrs VS Rishi Pal Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(Del) 3580: "*This decision also explains the scope and ambit of the ratio expounded in Bhoop Singh*."

Prem Singh & Others VS Karam Singh (since Deceased) Through L. rs & Others - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 1889: Larger bench examined *Bhoop Singh* for inconsistency but "*did not find any inconsistency*."

Siri Bhagwan VS Murti Devi (dead) through LRs - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1894: "Ram Singh Major Ranbir Singh Vs." – Fragmentary reference; treatment unclear due to incomplete text, but appears to cite positively in context.

Mohammade Yusuf v. Rajkumar - 2017 Supreme(Online)(MP) 567, Dharam Sai vs Dashmet Bai - 2022 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 1703, Mohana vs L.Govindaraj (Died) - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57084, SMT THOREYAMMA W/O LATE SRI K. HUTCHAPPA @ HUTCHAIAH vs SRI K.N. CHANDRAIAH HIGH COURT OF S/O SRI NARAYANASWAMY - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34565, Prasuna Ginning Mills vs M/s.Kalyana Chakravarthi Textiles Pvt., Ltd. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16691, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs vs Jagannath (dead) by LRs. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 33991: These appear to be summaries or annotations (e.g., "registration - The court summarized that...") that restate holdings from *Bhoop Singh* neutrally without explicit treatment language like "followed" or "distinguished"; categorized as uncertain due to abstract phrasing, but lean toward followed based on content.

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top