Case Law Details
Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Vs Manjit Kaur & Ors. (Supreme Court)
The issue before the Court was whether a memorandum of settlement required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/ was transferred in favour of the plaintiff
Supreme Court stated that, as noted clause (v) of Section 17(2) is attracted, which pertains to execution of any document creating or extinguishing right, title or interest in an immovable property amongst the family members. Considering the above, SC have no hesitation in concluding that the High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration. It must follow that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, as granted by the first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court and more so, in a casual manner, as adverted to earlier. Having said that, it is unnecessary to examine the alternative plea taken by the plaintiff to grant decree as prayed on the ground of having become owner by adverse possession. For the completion of record, we may mention that in fact, the trial Court had found that the possession of the plaintiff was only permissive possession and that finding has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court. In such a case, it is doubtful that the plaintiff can be heard to pursue relief, as prayed on the basis of his alternative plea of adverse possession. Be that as it may, SC deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and restore the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in R.S.A. No. 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh original defendant No. 1) came to be allowed by answering the substantial question of law formulated as under:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
