9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the compromise decree in a property possession suit. 2. Requirement of registration for the agreement entered into by the parties. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a suit seeking possession of a house claimed to be her absolute property against her husband, sons, and grandson. After the husband's death, the parties agreed to a compromise decree. The appellant contended that the agreement required her reinstatement in the family as a condition. However, the court found no such condition and passed a decree in accordance with the agreement. The appellant sought to set aside the compromise decree on the same ground. The learned advocate admitted the evidence supported the judge's finding but argued that the agreement should have been registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the agreement needed registration as it pertained to immovable property rights. However, the court analyzed the document as a whole and in the context of the surrounding circumstances. It was found that the agreement was not intended to declare the parties' rights in the immovable properties but to be embodied in a court decree. The document explicitly stated that the terms should be part of a court decree. As per Section 17(2)(b) of the Registration Act, a document creating a right to obtain another document, like a decree, does not require registration. The compromise decree was registered, fulfilling the Registration Act requirements. Therefore, the court upheld the validity of the agreement and the compromise decree, dismissing the appeal with costs.
|
