9911796707
TMI Blog1937 (4) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ughter's son Mahabir, defendant 1. The Court below has found that Mahabir entered into possession of the property; but it appears that mutation of names was not effected in the lifetime of Mt. Sartaji. She died in October 1931 and an application for mutation of names was made by Mahabir who was the applicant, which was resisted by the present appellant Mt. Mahadei Kunwar as the objector. Mahadei Kunwar is sister of Rambaran. On the 1st February 1932 a document Ex. A was filed in the revenue Court which was signed by Mahabir and bore the thumb impression of Mt. Mahadei Kunwar. It was in the form of an application addressed to the Court, in which it was prayed that the name of the applicant Mahabir should be recorded in the revenue paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration for his transfer from Mahabir under a deed dated 7th May 1932. Prior to the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act the question of the validity of a family settlement evidenced by an unregistered document was considered by a Full Bench of this Court in Ram Gopal v. Tulshi Ram A.I.R. 1928 All. 641. In that case it was held that a family settlement could be arrived at orally without any registered document, but that if the arrangement be reduced to writing, then registration was necessary under Section 17, Registration Act, although the transaction did not amount to a transfer of property. In this connexion the observations made by their Lordships of the Privy Council in several cases were quoted and relied upon. In Trigge v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but is a family settlement in which each party takes a share of the family property by virtue of the independent title which is, to that extent and by way of compromise, admitted by the other parties. 6. On the strength of these authorities the Full Bench held that the pronouncements of their Lordships of the Privy Council were sufficiently clear to put it beyond doubt that in the usual type of family arrangement there is no question of any property (the admitted title to which rests in one of the parties) being transferred to one of the other parties, and there is no transfer of ownership such as is necessary to bring the transaction within the definition of exchange in Section 118, T.P. Act. Of course, there may be a family settlemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. Howsoever unfortunate the result may be it is very difficult to apply Section 53-A to such a case. Had there been any transfer of property or contract to transfer for consideration any immoveable property involved in the case, Section 53-A would have applied. But it does not apply to the case before us. Thus, the defect of the want of registration held to be fatal by the Full Bench cannot be cured by the provisions of Section 53-A. It is to be noted that along with giving to the amendment of the Transfer of Property Act a retrospective effect by the addition of Section 53-A, the Legislature has also amended Section 39, Registration Act, and has expressly provided inter alia that: An unregistered document affecting immoveable prope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
