SOM DEV AND ORS. versus RATI RAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 778 · Decided: 06-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SOM DEV AND ORS. 
\'. 
RAT! RAM AND ANR. 
B 
SEPTEMBER 6, 2006 
(H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
C 
Indian Registration Act, 1908: 
D 
Section 17-Decree in a civil suit-Recognition of preexisting rights 
in property based on admission of the defendant-Non registration of-
Enforceability-Held, on facts, if based on admission and in nature of a 
family settlement does not require registration and hence enforceable. 
The issue involved in the present appeal is-Weather a decree passed 
on admission of relinquishment of right by one of the co sharer of the property 
in a suit relating to family arrangement requires registration under Section 
17(1) of the Registration Act and consequently, whether such decree can 
entitle the decree holder to enforce a right of pre-emption and recover 
E possession of the property from the assignee of the other co-owner? The 
contention germane to this appeal that was raised by the contesting defendants 
was that a right was created in the present plaintiff by the decree in the earlier 
Civil Suit which was one based on a compromise and since the decree purported 
to create a right in the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre-existing 
F right, the compromise decree required registration in terms of Section 17(1) 
of the Registration Act and the decree not having been registered, the plaintiff 
was not entitled to enforce the alleged right of pre-emption as against the 
contesting defendants or their assignor, the other co-owner. The trial court 
held that the decree in the earlier suit was enforceable even without 
registration as it was not hit by Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. On 
G appeal, the lower appellate court affirmed this view of the trial court. The lower 
appellate court also held that what was involved in earlier Civil suit was a 
family arrangement and since a bona fide family arrangement among the 
members of a family in the large sense of the term, did not require 
registration, no objection could be raised by the contesting defendants to the 
H 
778 
( 
' .. 
SOM DEV v. RA Tl RAM 
779 
enforceability of the title claimed by the plaintiff. In the second appeal, the A 
High Court held that the decree in earlier civil Suit was based on a family 
settlement which did not require registration and that the decree itself did 
not require registration in view of Section l 7(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the court 
HELD I.I. The '1ecree in earlier civil Suit was not a compromise decree 
B 
but really a decree on admission and the admission was of the pre-existing 
right set up by the plaintiffs. The decree by itself did not create any right in 
immovable property. It only recognised the right set up by the plaintiffs in 
that suit in respect of the property involved in that suit. It is one thing to say C 
that that decree is vitiated by collusion or by fraud or some such vitiating 
element But it is quite another thing to say that such a decree could be excluded 
from consideration on the ground of want of registration. The decree, 
,therefore, is admissible and has to be treated as evidencing the recognition 
of the rights of the present plaintiff and his brother as co owners. 
D 
1782-B; F-H; C-FI 
Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors., 119951 Supp. SCR 466, 
distinguished. 
Purmananddas v. Val/abdas, ILR 11 Bombay 506; Pranal Anni v. E 
Lakshmi Anni and Ors., l.L.R. 22 Madras 508; Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi v. 
Midnapur Zamindari Company limited, 46 Indian Appeal 240; Mangan Lal 
Deoshi v. Mohammad Moinul Haque and Ors., [19501 SCR 833 and S. 
Noordeen v. V.S. Thiru Venkita Reddiar and Ors., [199612 S.C.R. 261, referred 
to. 
F 
Mu/la on Registration Act, Tenth Edition, referred to. 
2. I. When a cause of action is put in suit and it fructifies into a decree, 
the Cause of action gets merged in the decree. Thereafter, the cause of action 
. cannot be resurrected to examine whether that cause of action was er.forceable 
or the right claimed therein could be enforced. It is only permissible to look G 
at the evidentiary value of that decree at least as a case of assertion and 
recognition of the right by the court. In the case on hand, the family 
arrangement set up, which suffered no defect on the ground of want of 
registration, had been accepted by the Court in a civil suit and relief granted. 
That grant of relief cannot be ignored as not admissible. 1790-E-F, H; 791-AI H 
780 
SUPREME COURT R

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