HANS RAJ Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy relating to the applicability of provisions of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act (16 of 1908) has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a very recent case of Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and others reported as, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 196 : 1995(3) RRR 541(SC). While elaborating the provisions governing the mandatory registration of decrees, settlement or orders their Lordships enumerated the law as follows :-

(2.) THE facts necessary for such determination are that one Sadhu was owner of House No. 560 in village Beh Dulo, Tehsil Dasuya and land measuring 6 Kanal 17 Marla Khasra No. 238 in the same village. He was unmarried and died issueless. Sadhu is stated to have executed registered Will dated 2.8.1976 in favour of one Shri Bishamber defendant No. 1 in the suit. Bishamber also died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives Hans Raj etc. were brought on record. The plaintiff in the suit claimed that he was intending to file a suit to challenge the validity of this will in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant but in the meanwhile the matter was got compromised by the village respectables and a family settlement was effected and written between the parties. According to this family settlement the suit land and the house in dispute were given to the plaintiff as owner. Remaining land of Sadhu deceased was given to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in equal shares. The plaintiff further claimed that he continued in possession of the suit land as well as the house since death of Sadhu and entries in the revenue record were made with regard to the factum of his possession. The suit was contested by the defendant who pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit. The alleged ownership and possession of the plaintiff was denied. The defendants submitted that under the will they were entitled to the aforesaid property from Bishamber being his natural heirs as he had become the absolute owner of this property and mutation in revenue record with regard to their ownership was duly sanctioned and recorded. The factum of family settlement/writing was denied. The trial Court framed the following issues :-

(3.) THE moot point which requires to be noticed in the present case is that the learned First Appellate Court not only relied upon the family settlement/writing Ex.P.2 but also held that the said document did not require any registration. The finding of the trial Court that Ex.P.2 was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration was disturbed by the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court also directed change in the revenue record on the basis of Ex.P.2.