LexTIRUVENIBAI & ANOTHER versus SMT. LILABAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2) S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 107 in the circumstances of the present cases, be held to I959 have caused prejudice to him. We must accordingly hold that the continuation of the trial of the three Gopi Chand v. cases against the appellant according to the summons The Delhi procedure subsequent to October I, 1950, has vitiated Administration the trial and has rendered the final orders of convic- , tion and sentence invalid. We must accordingly setGajendragadkar J. aside the orders of conviction and sentence passed against the app~llant in all the three cases. That takes us to the question as to the final order which should be passed in the present appeals. The offences with which the appellant stands charged are of a very serious nature; and though it is true that he has had to undergo the ordeal of a trial and has suffered rigorous imprisonment for some time that would not justify his prayer: that we should not order his retrial. In our opinion, having regard to the gravity of the offences charged against the appellant, the ends of justice require that we should direct that he should be tried for the said offences de novo accord- ing to law. We also direct that the proceedings to be taken against the appellant hereafter should be com- menced without delay and should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Appeal allowed. Retrial ordered. TIRUVENIBAI & ANOTHER 1). SMT. LILABAI (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and M. HIDAYA'.1.'ULLAH, JJ.) Registration-Contract to lease-Agreement not creating a pre- sent and immediate demise-Whether requires registration-" Agree- ment to lease ", Meaning of-Indian Registration Act, I90/i (I6 of I908), S. 2(7). A document purporting to be a receipt and bearing a four anna revenue stamp was executed by Min favour of the respon- dent and recited, inter alia, as follows: " I have this day given I959 January :JI. 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. r959 to you the land described below which is owned by me. Now you have become occupancy tenant of the same. You may Tirttvenibai enjoy the same in any w·ay you like from generation to genera- & Anoth" tion. My estate and heirs or myself shall have absolutely no v. right thereto. You shall become the owner of the said land Smt. Lilabai from date r-6-4+ I will have absolutely no right thereto after the said date ......... The estate ...... has been given to you in lieu of your Rs. 8,700 due to you, subject to the condition that iii case your amount has not been paid to you on date 1-6-44, you may fully enjoy the estate .... in any way you like from generation to generation." The respondent instituted a. suit against M for the specific performance of a contract to lease alleging that under the document he had contracted to lease to her in per- petuity in occupancy right his lands in consideration of the debt of Rs. 8,700 and as the amount was not paid within the due date, he was liable to perform and give effect to the said con- tract. M contended, inter alia, that the document was an agreement to lease under s. 2(7) of the Indian Registration Act, r908, and that as it was not registered it was inadmissible in evidence. · Held, that an agreement to lease under s. 2(7) of the Regis- tration Act, 1908, must be a document which effects an actual demise and operates as a lease. An agreement between t\vo parties which entitles one of them merely to claim the execu- tion of a lease from the other without creating a present and in1mediate demise in his favour is not an agreement to lease within the meaning of s. 2(7) of the Act. Held, further, that on a construction of the document in question, it \Vas not intended to, and did not, effect an actual or present demise in favour of the respondent and consequently it was not an agreement to lease under s. 2(7) of the Act. Accord- ingly, the document did not require registration and was admis- sible in evidence. Hemanta Kumari Devi v. Midnapitr Zamindari Co., Ltd., (1919) L.R, 46 I.A. 240, relied on. Panchanan Bose v. Chandra Charan Misra, (r9IO) I.L.R. 37 Cal. 808, approved. Narayanan Chetty v. Muthia Servai, (1912) I.LR. 35 Mad. 63, Purmananddas ]iwandas v. Dharsey Kirji, (r886) I.L.R. IO Born. IOI, Balram v. Mahadeo, I.L.R. 1949 Nag. 849 and Poole v. Bently, (r8IO) 12 East. r68; I04 E.R. 66, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE Jumsm.cTION: Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1955. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 30th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.