Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Hansa Industries Pvt. LTD. VS Kidarsons Industries Pvt. LTD. ...
Hansa Industries Pvt. LTD. VS Kidarsons Industries Pvt. LTD. - 2006 8 Supreme 830 : The legal document states that a family arrangement may be oral, and registration is not necessary in such cases. It further clarifies that registration is only required if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Additionally, a memorandum prepared after the arrangement for record or Court information does not create or extinguish rights in immovable property and is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.Checking relevance for K. Arumuga Velaiah VS P. R. Ramasamy...
K. Arumuga Velaiah VS P. R. Ramasamy - 2022 7 Supreme 1031 : A compromise decree that does not create a new right, title, or interest in immovable property for the first time, but merely recognizes a preexisting right among heirs, does not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. This principle was affirmed in Ripudaman Singh vs. Tikka Maheshwar Chand (2021) 7 SCC 446, where the Supreme Court held that when a family settlement or compromise recognizes an existing right in property and no new right is created, registration is not mandatory.Checking relevance for Ripudaman Singh VS Tikka Maheshwar Chand...
Ripudaman Singh VS Tikka Maheshwar Chand - 2021 4 Supreme 721 : A compromise decree entered into between family members in respect of land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and does not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, provided it is part of a family settlement that only declares pre-existing rights rather than creating new rights. The court held that such a compromise decree, even if including land beyond the subject-matter of the suit, is binding within the family and does not fall under the mandatory registration requirement because it does not create rights de novo but merely recognizes existing rights. The judgment of the High Court holding that the compromise decree required registration was found to be erroneous in law.Checking relevance for Bhoop Singh VS Ram Singh Major...
Bhoop Singh VS Ram Singh Major - 1995 0 Supreme(SC) 900 : A compromise decree creating a right, title or interest in immovable property for the first time does not require registration if it merely declares pre-existing rights rather than creating new ones. The court must examine whether the parties had pre-existing rights to the property, and whether the decree extinguishes one party''''s rights and confers new rights in praesenti in favour of another. If the latter is true, registration is mandatory; otherwise, no registration is required. This principle applies even when the decree is based on compromise, as long as it does not create a new right, title or interest in immovable property of value Rs. 100/- or upwards.Checking relevance for RANI HEMANTA KUMARI DEBI VS MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARI COMPANY LIMITED...
RANI HEMANTA KUMARI DEBI VS MIDNAPUR ZAMINDARI COMPANY LIMITED - 1919 0 Supreme(SC) 42 : The compromise agreement incorporated in a decree under Section 375 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, is not required to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, because it falls under the exception in Section 17, sub-section 2(vi), which excludes ''''any decree or order of a Court'''' from the requirement of registration. The Judicial Committee held that the decree, which incorporated the entire compromise agreement, was admissible in evidence as a judicial document, even though the agreement itself was not registered, because it was part of a valid decree. This makes the compromise enforceable without registration.
