SOM DEV Vs. RATI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEAVE granted.

(3.) THE Trial Court held that the decree in Civil Suit No. 398 of 1980 was enforceable even without registration as it was not hit by S.17(1) of the Registration Act; that the said decree had recognised the right claimed by the plaintiff and in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession from the assignee of the other coowner in enforcement of his right of pre emption. On appeal, the lower appellate court affirmed this view of the Trial Court. The lower appellate court also held that what was involved in Civil Suit No. 398 of 1980 was a family arrangement and since a bona fide family arrangement among the members of a family in the larger sense of the term, did not require registration, no objection could be raised by the contesting defendants to the enforceability of the title claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed. The contesting defendants filed a second appeal. They raised the substantial question of law that the decree in Civil Suit No. 398 of 1980 created rights in favour of the plaintiff in a property in which he had no pre existing right and such a decree, to become enforceable, required registration. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others (1995 Supp. (3) SCR 466) in support. The High Court held that the decree in Civil Suit No. 398 of 1980 was based on a family settlement which did not require registration and that the decree itself did not require registration in view of S.17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Thus, the substantial question of law formulated was answered in favour of the plaintiff, the judgments and decrees of the courts below were confirmed and the second appeal filed by the contesting defendants was dismissed. It is challenging this decision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave is filed by the contesting defendants.