Forget password
New User/ Regiser
Register for Demo / Trial
Annual Subscription Offer
With popular demand, we introduce:-
Special offer on GST Package for Professionals
i.e. CA/CWA/CS/Advocate/Others @ 2500/- +GST
2020 (7) TMI 731 - SUPREME COURT - Indian Laws
Head Note / Extract:
Whether the document Ex.P6 required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than ₹ 100/was transferred in favour of the plaintiff? HELD 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. Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.