2009 (3) TMI 1068 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the challenge against a decree in a civil suit, the collusiveness of the suit, the interpretation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and the inconsistency in previous court decisions regarding the interpretation of the exception in Section 17(2)(vi).

Challenge against Decree in Civil Suit:
The appellants, daughters of Bhagwana, challenged the decree in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980 as collusive, seeking to set it aside. The trial court decreed Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 in their favor, but the first appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court also dismissed the second appeal by the appellants against the judgment of the first appellate court.

Collusiveness of the Suit:
The First Appellate Court found that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980 were not collusive. Bhagwana, the defendant in the suit, supported the decree and was alive when another suit was filed. The appellants did not participate in the trial to claim any right in the disputed land.

Interpretation of Section 17 of the Registration Act:
The appellants argued a violation of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The exception in Section 17(2)(vi) states that a decree or order of a court, not expressed to be made on a compromise, regarding immovable property not part of the suit, requires registration. The court noted conflicting interpretations in previous cases and found difficulty in accepting the view that the exception covers only pre-existing rights.

Inconsistency in Previous Court Decisions:
There is inconsistency between the decisions in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and K. Raghunandan v. Ali Hussain Sabir regarding the interpretation of the exception in Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. The court found it necessary to refer the matter to a larger bench for a clear interpretation of the exception.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court regarding the collusiveness of the suit and the interpretation of Section 17 of the Registration Act. However, due to the inconsistency in previous court decisions, the matter was referred to a larger bench for a definitive interpretation of the exception in Section 17(2)(vi).