Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The supreme court held that a consent decree does not require registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act if it is based on the admission that recognizes the pre-existing rights under the family settlement.
In this case, the tenure-holder of agricultural land was Badlu. He had two sons, Sher Singh and Bali Ram. Sher Singh died in 1953, leaving alone his widow Jagno . His widow inherited part of her late husband's property after the death of Sher Singh which amounted to half of the agricultural property owned by Badlu. In 1991, Jagno's brother's sons filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration declaring ownership of the aforementioned agricultural land. They claimed that Jagno, who held half the shares, had settled the land in their favor in a family settlement who were the sons of the brother. The Trial Court passed a consent decree, taking notice of the written declaration in which Jagno acknowledged this claim. Later, the descendants of the Jagnos's husband's brother filed a lawsuit arguing that this consent decree is illegal.
There were two main issues that this case presented before the supreme court, they were:
According to the appellants, the applicants for Civil Suit No.317 of 1991 did not have an existing right, so the decree of 19.08.1991 mandated registration under Section 17(1)(b) and the decree provided a right for the applicants. They referred to Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major 1995 SCC (5) 709, in which it was held that it is mandatory to register a decree or order including a compromise decree awarding new right, title, or interest in the immovable property at or above Rs.100.On the other hand, the respondents relied on the case of Som Dev and Ors. Vs. Rati Ram (2006) 10 SCC 788, in which the decision was focused on an admission acknowledging the family settlements pre-existing rights and found that the decree did not require registration under Section 17(1) (b) of the act.
The Supreme Court held that, since the order seeking to be exhibited was in respect of a property at dispute, the exclusionary provision of Section 17(2)(vi) and the decree did not require registration.
86540
103860
630
114
59824