LexPHOOL PATTI AND ANR versus RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 5 S.C.R. 362 A PHOOL PATTI AND ANR. v. RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005) B MARCH 31, 2009 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ASOK KUMAR GANGUL Y, JJ.] Registration Act, 1908: s.17(2)(vi) - Exception in c s.17(2)(vi) - Interpretation of - Inconsistency between the decisions of Supreme Court regarding interpretation of exception in s.17(2)(vi) - Matter referred to larger Bench - Reference to larger Bench. Appeal: First appellate court - Finding of first appellate D court that consent decree in another suit was not collusive was a finding of fact - High Court rightly refused to interfere with the findings of fact. Interpretation of statutes: Court cannot add words to the E statute or change its language, particularly when on a plain reading the meaning is clear. ~ The appellants were daughters of one 'B'. They filect a suit No. 234 of 1982 challenging a consent decree dated 24.11.1980 in Civil Suit No.630 of 1980 on the F ground that same was collusive. The trial court decreed the suit. However, first appellate court set aside the order of trial court. High Court dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal. Referring the matter to larger Bench on interpretation G of exception in clause (vi) of s.17(2) of Registration Act, the Court HELD: 1. The finding of the First Appellate Court that the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1980 was not H collusive is a finding of fact. '8' who was the defendant 362 PHOOL PATii AND ANR. v. RAM SINGH (DEAD) 363 ... THROUGH LRS. & ANR. in Civil Suit No.630 of 1980 supported the judgment and A decree dated 24.11.1980 by giving his evidence on oath. On the other hand the appellants did not appear at any stage of the trial of the suit being No.234 of 1982 before -~ the trial Court to stake or affirm or claim any right in the disputed land. '8' was residing with the respondents for B the last several years and he treated the respondent as his real son. As regards the appellants who were his daughters, they were married long back, and left for their maternal home, and 'B' was living with the respondent alone. 'B' was said to have had great love and affection c for the respondent. There was a family arrangement in which the disputed property fell exclusively to the respondent. Since the consent decree dated 24.11.1980 was held by the first appellate court to be not collusive, .. the High Court rightly refused to interfere with that D findings of fact. [Paras 5 to 9] [365-D-H; 366-A-B] 2.1. The exception mentioned in Section 17(2)(vi) of Registration Act, 1908 means that if a suit is filed by the plaintiff in respect of property 'A', then a decree in that suit in respect of immovable property 'B' (which was not E the subject-matter of the suit at all) would require registration. This was the view taken by this Court in *K. Raghunandan Case. [Para 12] [366-E] A *K. Raghunandan & Ors. v. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors. F (2008) 9Scale 215 and **Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major 1995 (5) sec 709, referred to. 2.2. There seems to be inconsistency between the decisions of this Court in *K. Raghunandan's case and **Bhoop Singh's case in so far as the interpretation to the G exception in clause (vi) of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act is concerned. Prima facie it seems that the decision in **Bhoop Singh's case does not lay down the correct law. It is a well settled principle of H 364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R. A interpretation that the Court cannot add words to the statute or change its language, particularly when on a plain reading the meaning seems to be clear. Since there is no mention of any pre-existing right in the exception in clause (vi) it is difficult to accept the views in **Bhoop B Singh's case. [Para!; 14 and 16] (367-A-B, F] c Case Law Reference: (2008) 9 Scale 215 1995 (5) sec 109 referred to referred to Para 12 Para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 22.10.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second D Appeal No. 2176 of 1985. Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Urned Singh Gulia and Rutwik Panda for the Appellants. Nidesh Gupta, S.K. Bansal, Savitri Bansal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Avinash Kumar Jain for the E Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. 1. This appeal by special leave has been filed agains
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.