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

SARDAR SINGH V. KRISHNA DEVI (1994) 4 SCC 18

 SARDAR SINGH V. KRISHNA DEVI (1994) 4 SCC 18

FACTS

  • Sardar Singh, the appellant, and Kartar Lal, his brother, jointly purchased a property in Karol Bagh, New Delhi in 1959.
  • Kartar Lal obtained the sale certificate for the property in his name.
  • An arbitration award in 1963 declared that Sardar Singh and Kartar Lal were joint owners of the property, each holding half share.
  • The appellant sought eviction of tenants from the property for personal occupation.
  • Kartar Lal entered into a contract to sell the entire property to Joginder Nath, the husband of the first respondent, in 1973.
  • In Trial court, a suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of the first respondent.
  • On appeal the High Court of Delhi, the court confirmed the decree of trial court.

ISSUE

  • Whether the arbitration award, declaring joint ownership of the property between Sardar Singh and Kartar Lal, required registration under the Registration Act, 1908, and if the courts were justified in decreeing specific performance of the contract.

RULE

  • A conjoint reading of Section 17(1)(b) and Section 49 of the Registration Act establishes that a non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish in present or future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent to or in any immovable property of the value of Rs 100 and above, shall compulsorily be registered, otherwise the instrument does not affect any immovable property comprised therein or shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such immovable property.
  • However, if the award merely declares a pre-existing right without creating new rights in immovable property, it is not compulsorily registrable.

HELD

  • In Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal [(1989) 2 SCR 250, 259], case this Court noted the distinction between the declaration of an existing right as a full owner of the property in question and creation of a right in immovable property in praesenti. In that case, since a new right was created under the award in favour of the respondent, it was held that the award required registration and non-registration rendered the award inadmissible in evidence under Section 49.
  • Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi [AIR 1961 SC 1077]: clarified that though the award was not registered, it could be relied on as a defence to show that parties had agreed to refer the dispute to private arbitration, the award made thereon was accepted by the parties and acted upon it.
  • The arbitration award, although unregistered, is valid and conclusive between the parties.
  • The award did not create any new right but declared the pre-existing joint ownership of the property.
  • The appellant and Kartar Lal were co-owners, and the appellant's consent was not obtained for the sale contract with the first respondent.
  • The courts below erred in decreeing specific performance for the entire property without considering the appellant's half-share.
  • The decree for specific performance is modified to enforce the contract only for Kartar Lal's half share of the property.
  • The first respondent is entitled to specific performance only for half of the property, as Kartar Lal's successor-in-interest.
  • The appeal is allowed, and the decree of the High Court is set aside, modifying the trial court's decree accordingly