MITHILESH KUMAR versus MANOHAR LAL

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 30-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
MITHILESH KUMAR 
A 
v. 
MANOHAR LAL 
OCTOBER 30,. 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Registration Act, 1908 : 
S. J7(1)(b)-Agreement entered into stipulating self-imposed conditions 
for use of land-No consideration-Whether compulsorily registrable--
Held: Undertaking given as to exercise of right over property-Incapable C 
of valuation-Value cannot be construed to be hundred rupees or more-
Hence not a compulsorily registrable document. 
Kashinath Bhaskar Datar v. Bhaskar Vishweshwar, AIR (1952) SC 
153; S. Noorden v. VS. Thiru Venkita Reddiar and Ors., AIR (1996) SC D 
1293; Lachhaman Dass v. Ram Lal and Anr., [1989] 2 SCR 250; Mst. 
Kirpal Kaur v. Bachan Singh and Ors., [1958] SCR 950; Sardar Singh v. 
Krishna Devi (Smt.} and Anr., JT(l994) 3 SC 465 = [1994] 4 SCC 18 
and Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors., [1995) 5 SCC 709, 
distinguished. 
Mohamad Hussain v. Korwar Sarappa, AIR (1954) Hydrabad 14 
and Gobardhan Sahi and Anr. v. Jadu Nath Rai and Anr., ILR (35) 
Allahabad 202, referred to. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2325 of F 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.79 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 4 70 of 1972. 
J.P. Goyal, R.P. Goyal and Sushi! K. Jain for the Appellant. 
G.L. Sanghi. K.B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the 
Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
173 
G 
H 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned 
single Judge of the Allahabad High Court made on 26.10.1979 in Civil 
Appeal No. 68/71. 
The appellant tiled the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the 
respondent from raising a construction except the Chabutra in the north 
B after leaving a 3 feet passage and from opening windows, door ventilators, 
parnalas towards the north, south and east of the plaintiff's property by 
raising any construction in the passage. The appellant relies upon the 
agreement dated June 26, 1964 executed by the respondent as foundation 
for the aforesaid rights. He also sought alternative relief on the basis thereof 
that if any construction is made in violation of the said agreement, there 
C shall be given mandatory injunction to demolish the same at the instance 
of the defendant and to close the doors, windows, ventilators etc. at his 
cost. The trial court dismissed the suit. But on appeal, the appellate Court 
"reversed the decree of the District Munsif, Kashipur of his judgment and 
decree dated May I 0, 1971 and decreed the suit only in respect of item 
Nos. I and 2 holding that the agreement did not require registration. The 
D High Court in the second appeal held that the items require registration 
compulsorily under Section 17( I) (b) of the Registration Act. Since the 
agreement was not registered, the appellant has no right to claim any right 
on that basis. Accordingly, it allowed the second appeal, reversed the decree 
of the appellate Court and confirmed that of the trial Court. Thus, this 
E appeal by special leave. 
The admitted position is that the respondent had purchased the 
property of an extent of 1732.6 sq.ft. with 16' wide road on the north side 
and 30' wide road towards Indira Gandhi School on the west side; shops 
constructed be the appellants on the south side and open land on the east 
F side; situated at MohallaGanj, Kashipur, District-Nainital from the appellant 
and got it registered in the Registrar's Office. On the next day, namely, 
26.6.1964, he had entered into an agreement with a condition envisaged as 
hereunder: 
G 
(I) 
H 
"I have purchased a piece of land only and not the trees and 
the wall. The said trees and wall belong to Shri Mithlesh 
Kumar. The following are the terms and conditions in respect 
of the said trees and the wall:-
That Lala Mithlesh Kumar will uproot the said trees and 
demolish the wall within 6 months hereof. 
-
• 
MITHILESH KR. v. MANOHAR LAL 
175 
(2) 
Whatever construction is raised by me in the said piece of A 
land, I will not open any door or window or ventilator or 
rain-water pipe or other pipe for discharge of day-to-day 
water flow towards the South, North and East. I will not 
construct any platform or balcony or stairs or comers towards 
(3) 
(4) 
I 6 ft. wide passage which Sh. Mithlesh Kumar has left in his 
land in front of my piece of land. 
B 
That I will raise my boundary wall in the north after leaving 
a set-back of 3 ft. measured from the platform. 
That if I

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