MOHAMMADE YUSUF & Ors. v. RAJKUMAR & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Registration Act, 1908 ss. 17, 17(1)(e), 17(2)(vi)
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 27
Judgment
hence not covered by exclusionary clause of Section 17(2)(vi) and present case is covered by the main exception crafted in Section 17(2)(vi), i.e., “any decree or order of a Court”. When registration of an instrument as required by Section 17(1)(b) is specifically excluded by Section 17(2)(vi) by providing that nothing in clause (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to any decree or order of the Court, the compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 did not require registration and learned Civil Judge as well as the High Court erred in holding otherwise. The order of the Civil Judge as well as the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 be exhibited by the trial court. [Para 14][660 C-E] Som Dev and Others v. Rati Ram and Another (2006) 10 SCC 788 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 778 – relied on. Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Others (1995) 5 SCC 709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466 – held inapplicable.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.