GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS. versus ANGREZ KAUR & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 14 S.C.R. 332 · Decided: 19-03-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
   [2020] 14 S.C.R. 332
GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS.
v.
ANGREZ KAUR & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6835 of 2009)
MARCH 19, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908: s.17 – Case of appellants was that
they were looking after one ‘B’, the sole defendant (owner of the
suit property) who was divorced long back and was staying with
them – His daughters (respondents) had left with their mother after
the divorce and never met him – Sole defendant had executed
registered will in favour of appellants and also a family settlement
was effected in which suit property was given to the appellants in
equal share – Sole defendant in a suit filed by appellants admitted
the claim of the appellants that a registered will was executed by
him in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellants and
also a family settlement was effected in which suit property was
given to the appellants in equal share – Suit was decreed on the
basis of admission of the sole defendant and after the decree,
mutation was effected in favour of the appellants – After the death
of the sole defendant, the said decree was challenged by the
respondents as null and void on the ground that it was not registered
and therefore was not valid decree – Held: The suit was based on
pre-existing right and the decree was expressly covered by expression
“any decree or order of the Court” under s.17(2)(vi) – Decree and
order did not require registration and were fully covered by
s.17(2)(vi), which contains exclusion from registration as required
in s.17(1) – Sequence of events clearly indicated that the sole
defendant of his own volition wanted to give the entire property to
the defendants due to the circumstances of the case, in which he
was placed – Therefore, the decree cannot be held to be suffering
from any fraud or coercion as contended by the respondents.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Suit filed by the appellants against ‘B’ relates to
the suit property described in plaint and the decree was passed
332
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
333
only with regard to suit property. The decree dated 09.01.1995
was, thus, expressly covered by expression “any decree or order
of a Court”. When legislature has specifically excluded
applicability of clause (b) and (C) with regard to any decree or
order of a Court, applicability of Section 17(1)(b) cannot be
imported in Section 17(2)(v) by any indirect method. Decree and
order dated 09.01.1995 did not require registration and were fully
covered by Section 17(2)(vi), which contains exclusion from
registration as required in Section 17(1). High Court as well as
First Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that
decree dated 19.01.1995 required registration and due to not
registered is null and void.  [Para 17]
Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others, (1995) 5
SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl.  SCR  466 – held
inapplicable.
Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. v. Rajkumar & Ors. Civil
Appeal No. 800 of 2020 decided on 05.02.2020 –
referred to.
2. ‘B’ had executed Will dated 02.09.1986, which was a
registered Will and pleaded in paragraph 2 of the plaint. In
paragraph 3 of the plaint, it was also pleaded that pursuant to a
Family Settlement dated 15.06.1994 by which ‘B’ decided to allot
plaintiffs in equal share and relinquished all his rights in the suit
property, which pleadings were admitted by ‘B’ in his statement.
The decree was passed on 09.01.1995 on the basis of which
mutation was sanctioned on 03.03.1995. ‘B’ was admittedly alive
till 24.04.1998 and in his lifetime, he never objected the decree
or mutation in favour of the defendants. It has been accepted by
the Courts below that ‘B’ and ‘G’ were divorced and which divorce
was recorded in writing on 15.09.1973 as proved before the
Courts below. ‘G’ after 15.09.1973 along with daughters started
living with brother of ‘B’ and thereafter never returned to ‘B’.
The Courts have found that ‘B’ lived with the defendants after
the divorce, who were taking care of him. The execution of
registered Will by ‘B’ on 02.09.1986 in favour of the defendants
and further his admission that all the claim of the defendants in
Suit No. 556 are correct and accepting that he has relinquished
GURCHARAN SINGH & ORS.  v. ANGREZ KAUR & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
his rights in favour of the respondents clearly disprove any ground
of fraud either on the Court or on ‘B’. Sequence of events clearly
indicate that ‘B’

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.