SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
SortMyLawSchool | Header Banner
  1. Home
  2. / Subject
  3. /Minor Act and SC Rules

Ghulam Ahmad v. Ghulam Qadir AIR 1968 J & K 35

Ghulam Ahmad v. Ghulam Qadir AIR 1968 J & K 35

FACT:

  • Ghulam Ahmad filed a revision petition against the order of the Sub-Registrar, Munsiff Srinagar, regarding the admissibility of a document dated 14th Baisakh 2008 (B).
  • The document in question was presented along with the plaintiff's plaint and referred to in a paragraph.
  • The defendant argued that the document was forged and inadmissible due to lack of stamp and registration.
  • The trial court initially held the document as a memorandum, not requiring registration or stamp duty. Still, this decision was challenged in the High Court where the High court sent back the matter to trial court.
  • The trial court again upheld its previous judgment. Hence, the present revision is preferred. 

 

ISSUE:

  • Whether the document dated 14th Baisakh 2008 is admissible in evidence despite not being stamped or registered.

RULE:

  • Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act requires non-testamentary instruments related to immovable property, which create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest, to be compulsorily registered.
  • The terms "create," "declare," "limit," and "extinguish" have specific legal meanings and implications.

 

HELD:

  • The court analyzed the content of the document, particularly clause (4), which dealt with the division of agricultural land among the parties.
  • It considered whether the document created, declared, limited, or extinguished any rights in the immovable property.
  • The court rejected arguments that the document was merely a memorandum or a compromise, emphasizing that it created new rights and obligations regarding the property.
  • Ghamandi Misser Vs. Jagarnath Misser and Ors (AIR 1938 Pat 212): the true test to determine whether the compromise speaks for the present or refers to a past agreement. If it creates a title claimed and is intended to be the evidence of the agreement, then it requires a declaration of will and must be registered as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.
  • The court concluded that clause (4) of the document fell under the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, making it compulsorily registrable.
  • Therefore, the document was deemed inadmissible in evidence to that extent, and the revision petition was accepted with costs.