Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Partition Deed Which Was Mutually Acted Upon Cannot Be Questioned for Its Non-registration 2005 Sc

Partition Deed Which Was Mutually Acted Upon Cannot Be Questioned for Its Non-registration 2005 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 245|Likes:
JUSTICE Ruma Pal & JUSTICE Dr.AR. Lakshmanan of Supreme Court of India in the case of Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh & Ors; (2006) 1 SCC 148 Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 in so far as it is relevant, requires under Clause (b) thereof, registration of "non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property". Sub section (2) of Section 17 creates exceptions to the mandatory requirements of Section 17(1) (b) and (c). One of the exceptions made in Section 17(2) of the Registration Act 1908, is Clause (i). This exception pertains to "any composition deed." In other words all composition deeds are exempt from the requirement to be registered under that Act . The Composition Deed in this case was a transaction between the members of the same family for the mutual benefit of such members. It is not the appellants' case that the agreements required registration under any other Act. Apart from this, there is the principle that Courts lean in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds particularly when the parties have mutually received benefits under the arrangement . Both the courts below had concurrently found that the parties had enjoyed material benefits under the agreements. We have ourselves also re-scrutinized the evidence on record on this aspect and have found nothing to persuade us to take a contrary view.
JUSTICE Ruma Pal & JUSTICE Dr.AR. Lakshmanan of Supreme Court of India in the case of Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh & Ors; (2006) 1 SCC 148 Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 in so far as it is relevant, requires under Clause (b) thereof, registration of "non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property". Sub section (2) of Section 17 creates exceptions to the mandatory requirements of Section 17(1) (b) and (c). One of the exceptions made in Section 17(2) of the Registration Act 1908, is Clause (i). This exception pertains to "any composition deed." In other words all composition deeds are exempt from the requirement to be registered under that Act . The Composition Deed in this case was a transaction between the members of the same family for the mutual benefit of such members. It is not the appellants' case that the agreements required registration under any other Act. Apart from this, there is the principle that Courts lean in favour of upholding a family arrangement instead of disturbing the same on technical or trivial grounds particularly when the parties have mutually received benefits under the arrangement . Both the courts below had concurrently found that the parties had enjoyed material benefits under the agreements. We have ourselves also re-scrutinized the evidence on record on this aspect and have found nothing to persuade us to take a contrary view.

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2012

pdf

text

original

 
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 1 of 12
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 6326 of 2005PETITIONER:Amteshwar AnandRESPONDENT:Virender Mohan Singh. & OrsDATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/10/2005BENCH:Ruma Pal & Dr.AR. LakshmananJUDGMENT:J U D G M E N TWITHCA No. 6327 OF 2005@ S L P (C) No. 17856 of 2003)(Arising of S L P(C) No. 11884 of 2003)RUMA PAL, J.Leave granted.Sir Datar Singh (described as DS) was a wealthy manowning several properties. When he died in 1973, his familyconsisted of his wife and four children. The present appealsoriginated in a legal tussle between the heirs over theproperties of DS. During the various litigations DS’s widow,whom we will call Lady DS, died. Their two sons, Mahinder andManinder are also dead. The disputes were continued betweenthe two daughters of DS and Lady DS viz. Amteshwar Anand(AA), Kirpal Kaur (KK) and KK’s daughter, Guneeta, on the onehand and the heirs of Maninder and Mahinder on the other. It isunnecessary to burden this judgment with the names of all theparties except to note the name of the main respondent inthese appeals. He is Virender Mohan Singh (VMS) and is theson of Maninder. He is supported by the other heirs ofManinder who are also respondents before us, includingManinder’s eldest son, Anand Deep Singh (ADS). AlthoughMahinder’s heirs are separately represented they also supportVMS.The basic question to be decided in these appeals iswhether the disputes between the parties were set at rest by avalid consent decree dated 25th August, 1993 disposing of SuitNo.63 of 1975 and Suit No.1495 of 1989.Suit No.63 of 1975 had been filed by Maninder, againstLady DS, Mahinder, AA, KK and KK’s daughter, Guneeta. SuitNo.1495 of 1989 was filed by ADS against AA, KK andGuneeta, the heirs of Mahinder and the other heirs of Maninder.Basically, both the suits were filed for partition of the propertiesof DS, portions of which were already in occupation andenjoyment of the different heirs of DS.The impugned consent decree was the culmination of aprocess of settlement which was recorded at three stages inthree agreements. The first agreement was entered intobetween VMS, KK and Guneeta on 18th March, 1993. Thisagreement provided inter alia that VMS surrendered all hisrights in the house in Bhopal in favour of KK and Guneeta. Inaddition he would pay a total sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to KK andGuneeta, of which Rs.5 lakhs would be paid at the time of thesigning of the application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Codeof Civil Procedure and the balance Rs. 45 lakhs in instalments
 
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 2 of 12
by cheques drawn by VMS in favour of KK or Guneeta asspecified in clause (b) of the agreement. A further sum of Rs. 5lakhs would be payable under clause (c) at the "time of suchfinal partition of suit properties for the shares of the otherparties", if VMS was unable to obtain a release from the otherco-sharers of their claims in the Bhopal House in favour of KKand Guneeta. The remaining clauses are partly confirmatory,partly operative in praesenti and partly executory. The clausesread:(c ) That Shri V.M. Singh relinquishes andreleases the share that would devolve uponhim on partititon in house in Bhopal known asSir Datar Singh house with outhouse andappurtenant area to the said buildingapproximately 1 Acre in favour of Smt. KirpalKaur and Kumari Guneeta, Shri V.M. Singhshall endeavour to obtain rights in the saidproperties completely in favour of Smt. KirpalKaur and Kumari Guneeta at the time of finalpartitition. In case of the same not beingsuccessful, Shri V.M. Singh shall pay anamount of Rs. 5 lakhs to Smt. Kirpal Kaur andKumari Guneeta collectively at the time ofsuch final partition of suit properties for theshares of the other parties. Apart from thishouse, out house and appurtenant land, Smt.Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta will not have anyright, title or interest in any other property inBhopal or otherwise.(d) That Smt. Kirpal and Kumari Guneetahave relinquished, released, given up,assigned all their rights, title and interest in allthe movable and immovable properties whichare the subject matter of the present suit orsuch properties which are the subject matter ofthe Suit No.63 of 1975. all these properties tothe extent of the share of Smt. Kirpal Kaur andKumari Guneeta shall deem to vest, be theexclusive properties of the defendant Shri V.M.Singh subject to the payments being made asspecified aforesaid. Shri V.M. Singh shall bethe owner of all interests, rights and benefitsthat have accrued or may accrue in favour ofSmt. Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta and shalldeem to vest with all the benefits accruing toShri V.M. Singh and would deem to have beenassigned in his favour and he shall be treatedthe exclusive owner to the extent of sharesdevolving on her from late Sir Datar Singh, latelady Satwant Datar Singh, HUF or otherwise.Smt. Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta also release,relinquish and assign their rights in 4.3 acres ofland situated in Khasra No.128 of VillageBehta, Bairagarh Bhopal standing in the namesof Smt. Kirpal Kaur and Kumari Guneeta.(e) All the liabilities, litigations,consequential proceedings before the revenueauthorities or otherwise shall be carried on byShri V.M. Singh entirely at his responsibilityand risk. Smt. Kirpal and Kumari Guneetashall not be liable or responsible directly orindirectly for any acts, deeds that Shri V.M.Singh may do in regard to the property in
 
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIAPage 3 of 12
question and he further assures that he shalldo all lawful acts and deeds under the law andassures that no liability of any kind, civil orcriminal, is attributed or taken against Smt.Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta.(f) That in order to facilitate and implementhis right under this agreement and of coursesubject to the aforementioned terms andconditions, a general power of attorney shallalso be executed by Smt. Kirpal and KumariGuneeta in favour of Shri V.M. Singh and heshall be solely responsible as owner of theproperty, but this deed is being executed onlyto facilitate if there is any technical hitch inimplementing this compromise in favour of ShriV.M.Singh who may get himself recorded asowner of the share of Smt. Kirpal and KumariGuneeta. Further, it is specifically agreed thatby the parties who undertake to this Hon’bleCourt that the agreement shall be binding uponthe parties and the cheques shall be honouredon presentation.(g) Smt. Kirpal and Kumari Guneeta shallexecute all legal documents as may berequired by Shri V.M. Singh at the risk andcost of Shri V.M. Singh in his name or thename of his nominee as and when requiredwithout any liability whatsoever on Smt. Kirpaland Kumari Guneeta.(h) Smt. Kirpal and Kumari Guneetashall also withdraw FAO (OS) No.82 of1992 pending in the Delhi High Court andall applications in the present Suit No.63 of1975 directed against Shri V.M. Singhshall be treated as withdrawn."Clause (d) contains apparent contradictions but theoverall intention was to record a relinquishment of rights in theproperties which were the subject matter of the two pendingsuits by KK and Guneeta in favour of VMS in exchange forVMS giving up his rights in the Bhopal properties and assumingall liabilities in respect of the suit properties and makingpayment in future of the sum of Rs. 50 lakhs.A common application (I.A.No.1860 of 1993) was filedbefore the High Court jointly by VMS, KK and Guneeta underOrder XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(referred to as ’the Code’) and an order was passed on 18thMarch, 1993 by the Court directing the settlement to be takenon record. Although VMS has paid a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs to KKand Guneeta pursuant to the settlement his cheques for thebalance amount of Rs 32 lakhs have not been honoured.The second agreement was entered into on 21st April,1993 between AA and VMS. Briefly stated, this agreement alsodealt with the interest claimed by AA and VMS in the estate ofDS. Its provisions were partly confirmatory of certain actionsalready taken by the respective parties in connection with suchproperties, some clarificatory, some operative in praesenti andothers executable in future. The relevant clauses of theagreement provided as follows:-"a. That it is agreed that Defendant V.M.Singhshall pay a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to Smt. Amteshwar

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->