KRIPA SHANKER PANDEY Vs. BAIJ NATH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Facts are that suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners against defendant-respondent seeking declaration that they were owners of the suit property on the allegation that the property was purchased out of earnings of plaintiff-petitioner no. 1 and out of love and respect the property was purchased in the name of defendantrespondent. It is to be taken note of that plaintiff-petitioner no. 1 is son and plaintiff-petitioner no. 2 is daughter- in-law of defendantrespondent. The suit was decreed on the basis of compromise between the parties with the condition that the decree would become effective only after it is registered under the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Aggrieved by the part of the condition directing registration of the decree, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking above quoted reliefs.

(3.) It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act since the property in dispute was subject matter of suit/proceedings as such the decree would not require any registration. The argument advanced is totally misconceived. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others, 1996 AIR(SC) 196while considering the provisions of Section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act in paragraphs 16 and 17 has observed as under :