VINOD KUMAR Vs. SHREENATH @ MUNNALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed by the trial Court holding that a suit filed under the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 can be pursued by the plaintiff is being impugned in the present petition. The basic challenge which is made is to the effect that the document on the basis of which claim of title has been set up by the landlord cannot be looked into. The reason given for this is that this document requires compulsory registration. Reliance is also placed upon Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, Major and others, AIR 1996 SC 196. The Supreme Court has laid down five propositions. These be noted :-

(2.) THE question as to whether a partition-deed requires compulsory registration or not and whether the decree based on it would also require registration is a matter which cannot be decided as an abstract proposition of law. This has to be decided on the basis of facts which may come on record. If title is being confferred for the first time by a deed it would require registration. If it is a record of past proceedings then this would not require registration. This aspect of the matter has also been taken into consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh (supra). In para 14, earlier decisions i.e. Tek Bahadur v. Debi Singh, AIR 1966 SC 292 and Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham, AIR 1966 SC 1836 were taken notes. It was observed :

(3.) I am of the view that the trial Court should examine the matter on the basis of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Singh (supra) and also on the principles laid down in the case of Tek Bahadur (supra). It is, however, made clear that this issue shall not be decided in piece-meal. This will be decided along with main case.