RIPUDAMAN SINGH versus TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND

RIPUDAMAN SINGH versus TIKKA MAHESHWAR CHAND

The compromise between the two brothers merely recognised pre-existing inheritance rights of the appellant and did not create new rights in praesenti; therefore the decree did not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the compromise decree including land not originally the subject-matter of the suit is valid and enforceable.

Parties
Appellant: Ripudaman Singh; Respondent: Tikka Maheshwar Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2021 / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 28.10.2006 (rsa No. 441 of 2004)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Registration, Compromise Decree, Family Settlement, Mutation, Pre Existing Rights
Registration Act, 1908 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Property Law Family Settlement/succession Compulsory Registration Compromise Decree Family Settlement Mutation +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ripudaman Singh

Appellant

Tikka Maheshwar Chand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2021 / Appeal From High Court Judgment Dated 28.10.2006 (rsa No. 441 of 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a compromise decree in respect of land which is not the subject-matter of the suit but is part of a family settlement requires compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908?

Ratio Decidendi

The compromise between the two brothers merely recognised pre-existing inheritance rights of the appellant and did not create new rights in praesenti; therefore the decree did not require compulsory registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the compromise decree including land not originally the subject-matter of the suit is valid and enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of the High Court dated 28.10.2006 set aside
  • Suit decreed in favour of the appellant