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

PHOOL PATTI AND ANR. V. RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. 2015 3 SCC 164

PHOOL PATTI AND ANR. V. RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. 2015 3 SCC 164

FACT

  • Ram Singh (nephew of Bhagwana) filed a suit in 1980 claiming joint Hindu family property.
  • A consent decree was passed on 24th November 1980 the result of the decree was that Ram Singh was declared the owner in possession of 52 kanals of land, that is, the agricultural land and the residential house in the revenue estate of Nizampur Majra in district Sonepat.
  • Another suit was filed in 1982 by Shobha Ram (another nephew of Bhagwana), Phool Patti, and Phool Devi, (both are daughter of Bhagwana) challenging the decree.
  • It was averred that Bhagwana could not gift the agricultural land and residential house to anybody thereby depriving his legal heirs (Phool Patti and Phool Devi) of their rights in the disputed property.
  • Allegations were made that the decree was collusive and that Bhagwana had gifted the property to Ram Singh.
  • Trial Court, it was held that the decree dated 24th November, 1980 was a collusive decree and a nullity and therefore illegal and void. Gift made to Ram Singh need compulsory registration.
  • The first appellate court decide the matter in favour of Ram Singh stating that Shobha Ram had no locus standi in case and both the daughters cannot challenge the gift made. Further, decree dated 24th November, 1980 was not a collusive decree since Bhagwana had supported it.
  • The respondents in the Second Appeal were Ram Singh, Shobha Ram and Bhagwana. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, dismissed the Second Appeal while holding that the disputed property admittedly was the self-acquired property of Bhagwana. It was held only Bhagwana could challenge the decree as he is the only one who have locus standi to challenge.
  • Present case is appeal against the judgment of HC.

ISSUE

  • Whether the consent decree passed in favour of Ram Singh, was collusive and whether it required compulsory registration.

RULE

  • If a decree pertains to immovable property not originally part of the suit, it still requires registration if it creates a new right, title, or interest in immovable property of a value greater than Rs. 100. This interpretation is based on Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to the plain language of the statute without adding any additional requirements beyond what is explicitly stated.

HELD

  • In our opinion the exception mentioned in Section 17(2)(vi) means that if a suit is filed by the plaintiff in respect of property A, then a decree in that suit in respect of immovable property B (which was not the subject-matter of the suit at all) will require registration. This is the view taken by this Court in K. Raghunandan & Ors. v. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors. 2008 (9) Scale 215.
  • Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major 1995 (5) SCC 709 in which it is stated that: ".... We would think that the exception 65 engrafted is meant to cover that decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does not by itself create new right, title or interest in present in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or upwards......."
  • The court considered conflicting interpretations of the law from the above cases and referred this conflict to three-judge bench. The three- judge bench clarified there is no inconsistency in the cases and matter referred again to the two-judge bench.
  • The court clarified that if a decree pertains to immovable property not subject to the suit, it requires registration.
  • The court concluded that the decree was not collusive. Stating that this fact has already admitted by the lower court and now cannot be challenged.
  • Bhagwana himself stated in the witness box on 27th January 1983 (in the second suit) that the entire disputed property was not ancestral but that 20 kanals were purchased by him while 32 kanals were ancestral property.
  • It held that 20 kanals of land were gifted by Bhagwana to Ram Singh, requiring compulsory registration.
  • The decree regarding 32 kanals did not require registration.
  • Phool Patti and Phool Devi, the daughters of Bhagwana, argued that they could challenge the gift made by Bhagwana to Ram Singh. However, there was no claim, no legal issue, and no evidence presented to challenge the validity of the gift of 20 kanals of land. Therefore, it is too late for them to question the validity of the gift in court without any foundation for a decision.
  • The appeal was partly allowed, and no costs were imposed.