LexK. RAGHUNANDAN AND ORS. versus ALI HUSSAIN SABIR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 657 K. RAGHUNANDAN AND ORS. V. ALI HUSSAIN SABIR AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3572 Of 2008) MAY 14, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.) A B Registration Act, 1940- s.17(2)- Suit for declaration that suit passage was private property of plaintiff in terms of a com- promise decree - Decreed - First appellate Court opined that c suit passage was not subject matter of compromise and thus did not confer any ex.elusive right over it - LPA dismissed by High Court holding that compromise decree being not regis- tered, no claim relying on the basis thereof could form basis of the suit- Correctness of- Held: Correct- It is admitted by D plaintiff that in compromise decree there was no mention of suit passage - Building plan submitted by plaintiff before mu- nicipality show that suit passage was a public road - Finding of fact arrived at by CCJurts below that passage was not private property- In terms of s.17(2), compromise entered into in re- spect of immovable property comprising other than that which E was subject matter of suit or proceeding requires registration -As in this case not only there existed a dispute with regard to title over the passage and the suit passage having not found the part of the compromise there is no infirmity in the impugned iudgment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Code of Civil F Procedure Amendment Act, 1976. The plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-respon- dents were neighbours. The dispute between them re- lated to a passage. A suit for perpetual injunction was G filed, which ended in a compromise. A map was annexed to the consent terms. All the properties shown in the red were accepted to be the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants had allegedly agreed not to interfere with 657 H 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A their possession. It was stated that a passage was shown i to be the exclusive property of the plaintiffs. The respondents fixed a door making an opening on the purported private passage belonging to the appel- lants. Respondents contended that the appellants have 8 no exclusive right over the scheduled property i.e. pas- sage measuring 80 yards and that it was a common pas- sage. Appellants filed a suit for declaration that the suit pas- C sage shown in red in the plaint was their private property. Respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction seeking injunction againstthe appellants from interfering with their usage of the passage. The trial Court by common judg- ment decreed the suit filed by appellants and dismissed 0 the suit of respondents, holding that the compromise decree conferred a right on the appellants in respect of passage in question. The respondents filed appeals. The First appellate Court opined that the suit passage was not .the subject matter of compromise and in any event the same did not confer any exclusive right, title and interest E thereto upon the appellants. High Court dismissed the LPAs on the premise that the compromise decree being not registered, no claim relying on the basis thereof could form the basis of the suit. Hence the present appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The portion marked in red was allotted to the plaintiffs- appellants and that marked in green was al- lotted to the defendants-respondents. Appellant No. 1, ex- amined himself as PW-1. He admitted that in the compro- G mise memo there was no mention about the suit passage. He also admitted that he had.not claimed the suit passage . in the said suit. He also admitted that his vendor had pro- vided the suit passage for his use. A finding .of fact has been arrived at that the passage was not shown either in H the areas demarcated in red or green. [Para 14] [665-C,D,E] K. RAGHUNANDAN v. ALI HUSSAIN SABIR 659 AND ORS. 1.2. With a view to determine the issue as to whether A the passage could have been the subject matter of com- promise, the parties adduced evidence. The building plan submitted by the appellants before the Municipality was brought on record. The passage was shown _as a road which means a public road. A finding of fact had been B arrived at that there was nothing on record to show that the passage was a private one. The High Court, rightly came to the conclusion that the plan must be read in terms of the memo filed and as the passage did not form part of the build- ing plan, prima facie, it was common to both. It has further- c more
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.