RIPUDAMAN SINGH versus TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 562 · Decided: 06-07-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
562
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
RIPUDAMAN SINGH
v.
TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND
(Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2021)
JULY 06, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908: s.17(2)(vi) – Parties to dispute are
brothers – Suit for possession disputing Will – Compromise decree
between brothers – Whether a compromise decree in respect of land
which is not the subject-matter of suit but is part of the settlement
between the brothers required compulsory registration in terms of
s.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act – Held: As heir of deceased-father,
the plaintiff-appellant had a right in the estate left by the deceased
– Therefore, it was not a new right being created for the first time
when the parties entered into a compromise before the civil court
rather an pre-existing right in the property was recognized by way
of settlement in court proceedings – Compromise entered between
the parties before the trial court leading to decree included land
which was not subject matter of suit – Compromise decree can be
passed even if the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise of
satisfaction is not the same as the subject-matter of the suit in terms
of the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Therefore, the
compromise decree entered into between the parties in respect of
land which was not the subject matter of the suit is valid and is thus
a legal settlement – Where the decree has been passed in respect of
family property, clause (vi) of sub-section 2 of s.17 of the Registration
Act would be applicable – The principle is based on the fact that
family settlement only declares the rights which are already
possessed by the parties – Compromise was between the two brothers
consequent to death of their father and no right was being created
in praesenti for the first time, thus not requiring compulsory
registration.
Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others (1995) 5
SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466 – relied on.
Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation
and Others (1976)3 SCC 119:[1976] 3 SCR 202;
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 562
562
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
563
Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Others v. Manjit Kaur and
Others (2020) 9 SCC 706; K. Raghunandan and Others
v. Ali Hussain Sabir and Others (2008) 13 SCC
102:[2008] 8 SCR 657; Phool Patti and Another v. Ram
Singh (Dead) Through LRs. and Another (2009) 13 SCC
22:[2009] 5 SCR 362; Phool Patti and Another v. Ram
Singh (Dead) Through LRs. and Another (2015) 3 SCC
465 – referred to
Case Law Reference
[1976] 3 SCR 202
referred to
Para 10
(2020) 9 SCC 706
referred to
Para 11
[1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466
relied on
Para 13
[2008] 8 SCR 657
referred to
Para 14
[2009] 5 SCR 362
referred to
Para 15
(2015) 3 SCC 465
referred to
Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2336
of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2016 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in RSA No. 441 of 2004.
R. Basant, Sr. Adv., Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Siddharth
Thakur, Vishnu P., Ms. Vipasha Singh, Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Anuradha
Mutatkar, Advs for the appellant.
Mohit Paul, Vinod Sharma, Sunaina Phul, B. K. Satija, Advs. for
the respondent.
The following Order of the Court was passed :
ORDER
Leave granted.
1. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court challenging the
judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 28.10.2006 whereby
appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit for declaration
challenging the orders passed in mutation proceedings was dismissed.
RIPUDAMAN SINGH v. TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
564
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
2. The parties herein are the two sons of late Vijendra Singh. The
appellant filed a suit for possession in the year 1978 disputing the Will
dated 04.12.1958 executed in favour of the defendant. The appellant
claimed half share of the land as described in the plaint. During the
pendency of suit, a decree was passed on the basis of compromise arrived
at between the parties. The terms of compromise read as under:
“The plaintiff shall be delivered possession of Khasra No. 513/1
area measuring 8 Kanals 18 Marlas as per Tatima Ex.P-2 by the
defendant and the plaintiff shall be exclusive owner thereof and
the defendant shall continue to remain in physical possession as
an owner of Khasra No.513/2 area measuring 143 Kanals and 16
Marlas.
The plaintiff shall be owner of Khasra No. 516/1 area measuring
27 Kanals 11 Marlas and the defendant shall also pay to the plaintiff
a sum of Rs.10,000/- within one month f

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