LexS. NOORDEEN versus V.S. THIRU VENKITA REDDIAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
___, S. NOORDEE'N A v. V.S. THIRU VENKITA REDDIAR AND ORS. FEBRUARY 7, 1996 (K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B Registration Act, 1908 : S s. 17 ( 1), 17 ( 2 ~ompromise decree-Whether compulsorily registerable-Such a decree though passed on compromise, fonned part of the C decree and order of the Court in Court proceedings-The immovable proper~ ties whose sale is impugned in the instant case are not properties other than the subject matter of the suit or proceedings-Therefore they are not required to be compulsorily registered. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order 38 Rule 8 r/w Order 21 Rule 58-l'roceedings unde-,......./feld: A civil proceedings-When attachment of the properties has been made before the judgment, they become part of the civil proceedings in the suit-Thereby they become part of the decree. Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, [1995] 5 SCC 709, relied on. Ramdas v. Jagamath Prasad, AIR (1960) Patna 179; M.P. Reddiar v •. D E A. Ammal, AIR (1971) Madras 182; Govindaswami v. Rasu, AIR (1935) Madras 232 and C.M. Pillai v. H.S.S.S.S. Kadhiri Thaika4 AIR (1974) p Madras 199, approved. \ Chhotibai Daulatram v:Mansukhlallasraj, AIR (1941) Bombay 1 and Ganesh/al v. Ramgopa4 AIR (1955) Raj. 17, disapproved. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil .Appeal No. 779 of G 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.77 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 3375 of 1976-1. N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant. ·261 H 262 SUPREME COURTREPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R. A M.P. Vinod for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the learned B single Judge of the Kerala High Court made on June 24, 1977 in CRP No. 3375/76. The facts are fairly not in dispute. O.S. No. 95/53 was filed in the court of the Sub-ordinate Judge at Quilon by Palai Central Bank Ltd. to recover the amounts due from D.J. Gonzago, the second respondent. Certain properties appended to the Schedule to the plaint. and also items 1 to 7 of the petition were attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule C 6, Civil Procedure· Code, 1908 [for short the 'Code']. On April 3, 1954, a compromise decree was made empowering the decree holder to have the scheduled properties including item Nos. 1to7 of the additional properties mentioned above. In the meanwhile, the bank went into liquidation. The liquidator brought those properties to sale. With permission of the court D those properties were purchased by the decree-holder in execution on June · 26, 1969 and the sale was confirmed. On April 25, 1974, these properties, the subject matter in this case, were sold by the liquidator to the first respondent-Thiru Venkita Reddiar. The appellant S. Noordeen, plaintiff in O.S. No. 38/60 on the file of E the court of the Subordinate Judge, Quilon filed a suit against D.J. Gon- zaga for recovery of the money claim. On March 28, 1961, the money decree was passed. The properties covered under items 1 to 7 of the petition were sold iri execution of the decree in O.S. No. 95/53 after due attachment on January 13, 1969. The sale was confirmed on September 13, F 1974. The appellant, therefore, filed E.A. No. 57/7' to declare that the sale of properties in execution of the decree in O.S. 95/53 at items 1 to 7 of the . compromise decree was not valid and it does not bind him. That was upheld by the executing Court and the District Court in CMA. Thus the 1 respondent came to file CRP in the High Court. The High Court has held that though items 1 to 7 were not part of the mentioned in schedule G properties they became subject matter of the proceedings in O.S. No. 95/53 in which compromise decree, ultimately passed on 3.4.1954, properties were under attachment from 1953. Therefore, they became part of the suit properties. Consequentially. they are not required to be compulsorily registered. The decree thereby is not liable to be annulled. The appellant H does not get any valid right to the properties since they have already been - I .,. I . .::_ ... / S. NOORDEENv. V.S. THIRUVENKITAREDDIAR 263 sold. A Shri Sudhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the fact that items 1 to 7 of the compromise decree dated 3.4.54 were not the subject matter of O.S. No. 95/53 for recovery of the debt due from Gonzaga, the decree was required to be registered under Section B 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 [for short, the 'Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.