LexPHOOL PATTI AND ANR. versus RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 305 PHOOL PATii AND ANR. v. RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005) JANUARY 06, 2015 [MADAN B. LOKUR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] A B Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 17(1)(a), 17(2)(vi) - Documents of which registration is compulsory - Gift - Registration of - Non-collusive consent decree and a family C settlement between the parties - Statement of the owner-uncle that he gave the disputed property to his nephew under his free will treating him as his son - 20 kanals of land was his self acquired property while 32 kanals of his ancestral property came to the share of the nephew through the family settlement o - Registration of the said lands - Held: As regards 32 kanals of land, the nephew's claim over the said land was acknowledged in the consent decree - If did not require compulsory registration in view of s. 17(2)(vi) - As regards, the gift of 20 kanals of land by the uncle in favour of his E nephew, notwithstanding the decree in the first suit, it requires compulsory registration u/s. 17(1 )(a) since it created, for the first time, right, title or interest in immovable property of a value greater than Rs. 1001- in favour of the nephew. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1.1 In the face of contradictory facts, the only statement that can be relied upon is that of 'B'-owner himself who stated in the witness box (in the second suit) that the entire disputed property was not ancestral but G that 20 kanals were purchased by him while 32 kanals were ancestral property. If that be so, then 'B' was entitled to gift 20 kanals of land to 'RS'-nephew which he did. As regards the remaining 32 kanals, 'B' accepted the 305 H 306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A existence of a family settlement, and the trial court (in the first suit) did accept that there was a family settlement. It has been held that in a suit for declaration filed by 'RS' against "B, the consent decree was not a collusive decree, then it must follow that the finding that there was B no family settlement (arrived at in the second suit) must be held incorrect, and it is done so. Consequently, in terms of the family settlement, 32 kanals of land originally belonging to 'B' came to the share of 'RS' in the family settlement. This explains the statement of 'B' that he C "gave" the disputed property to 'RS' under his free will treating him as his son, that is, 20 kanals of his self acquired property and 32 kanals of his ancestral property that then came to the share of 'RS' through the family settlement. 20 kanals of land was gifted by 'B' to 'RS'. This gift clearly requires compulsory registration under D Section 17(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908. 'RS's claim over 32 kanals of land was acknowledged in the consent decree. This did not require compulsory registration in view of Section 17 (2) (vi) of the Act. [Para 27, 28, 29] [316- D-H; 317-A-C] E 1.2 The terms of the family settlement are not on record. The family settlement could relate to the ancestral as well as self-acquired property of 'B' or only the ancestral property. It appears that it related only to the F a_ncestral property and not the self-acquired property (hence the reference to a hibba). The decree relating to 32 kanals of land did not require compulsory registration. However, the self acquired property of 'B' that is 20 kanals, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Bhoop Singh's case the gift of 20 kanals of land by 'B'in favour G of 'RS', notwithstanding the decree in the first suit, requires compulsory registration since it created, for the first time, right, title or interest in immovable property of a value greater than Rs.100/- in favour of 'RS'. [Para 32] [318-B-D] H PHOOL PATTI AND ANR. v. RAM SINGH (DEAD) 307 THROUGH LRS. & ANR. Bhoop Singh v. 'RS' Major 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 466: A (1995) 5 sec 709 - relied on. K. Raghunandan and Ors. v. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors. 2008 (8) SCR 657: 2008 (9) SCALE 215: (2008) 13 sec 102; Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao 1956 SCR 463; Rup B Chand Gupta v. Raghuvanshi Pvt. Ltd. (1964) 7 SCR 760, 763; Ramchandra G. Shinde v. State of Maharashtra 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR 589: (1993) 4 SCC 216 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2008 (8) SCR 657 Referred to Para 19 1956 SCR 463 Referred to Para 30 (1964) 7 SCR 760, 763 Referred to Para 30 1993 (1) Suppl. SCR589 Referred to Para 30 1995 (3) Suppl. SCR 466 R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.