Consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of Registration Act, 1908: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ has held that consent decree recognising pre-existing rights created by oral family settlement does not require registration under section 17 of  Registration Act, 1908.

Background

In the present case, Shri Sher Singh, husband of Jagno had half share in the agricultural land situate in village Garhi Bajidpur, which was suit property. Sher Singh died in 1953. Jagno after enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by virtue of Section 14 became the absolute owner of the half share of the suit property.

She had succeeded to half share in the agricultural land and she was the absolute owner when she entered into family settlement with her nephews i.e. sons of her brother.

On 19.08.1991, the trial court passed the consent decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs owners in possession of the half share in the land.

The descendants of brother of husband of Jagno filed a Civil Suit praying for declaration that the decree dated 19.08.1991 is illegal, invalid and without legal necessity. They also claimed decree of declaration in their favour declaring them owners in possession of land in question.

Analysis 

The Court took note of the judgment in Som Dev v. Rati Ram, (2006) 10 SCC 788 wherein decree was based on an admission recognising pre-existing rights under family arrangement. It was held that the decree did not require registration under Section 17(1)(b).

In in K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain Sabir, (2008) 13 SCC 102, the Court interpreted Section 17 and held,

“… a property which is not the subject-matter of the suit or a proceeding would come within the purview of exception contained in clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Act. If a compromise is entered into in respect of an immovable property, comprising other than that which was the subject-matter of the suit or the proceeding, the same would require registration.”

The recent judgment in in Mohammade Yusuf v. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 264 was also taken note of wherein it was held that if decree which was sought to be exhibited was with regard to the property which was subject matter of suit, hence, was not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17(2) (vi) and decree did not require registration. (Justice Ashok Bhushan, the author of the present judgment had also penned the said judgment.)

Hence, in the present case, the Court held that in view of the fact that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 relate to the subject matter of the suit, hence it was not required to be registered under Section 17(2) (vi) and was covered by exclusionary clause.

[Khushi Ram v. Nawal Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 128, decided on 22.02.2021]

*Judgment by: Justice Ashok Bhushan 

Appearances before the Court by:

For appellant – Advocate Ranbir Singh Yadav

For respondent – Senior Advocate Manoj Swarup

ALSO READ 

Married woman’s heirs on paternal side are not strangers; she can enter in family settlement with such heirs: Supreme Court