Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Registeration Act 1 1 1
The Registeration Act 1 1 1
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit in the Delhi High Court
seeking the dissolution of the partnership and
accounts. The plaintiff valued the suit at Rs. 25 lakhs
for the purpose of jurisdiction and at Rs. 500 for
court fees. The defendants raised a preliminary
objection, contending that the relief sought in the
suit had been undervalued and requested the court to
reject the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(b) of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues
1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was
undervalued for the purpose of court fees.
2. Whether the court had the power to interfere with
the plaintiff’s valuation of the relief sought.
Arguments
The defendants argued that in a suit for accounts, the
plaintiff could not arbitrarily value the suit according
to their whims. They contended that there was an
objective standard or positive material on the face of
the plaint, and the valuation of the relief, ignoring
such an objective standard, was demonstratively
arbitrary.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court concluded that the suit filed by
the plaintiff was not undervalued for the purpose of
court fees. The court held that in suits for accounts, it
is not possible to determine the correct value of the
relief at a preliminary stage. The Supreme
Court emphasized that the plaintiff cannot
whimsically choose a ridiculous figure for the suit.
Still, in the absence of objective standards or
positive materials, the plaintiff’s valuation of the
relief sought should be accepted. The Court upheld
the principle that the plaintiff has the right to value
the relief subject to any rules made under the Suits
Valuation Act.
FACTS
1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment dated
13.12.1971 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in
Second Appeal No. 617/89, wherein the learned
Judge of the High Court dismissed the Second
Appeal filed by the present appellant.
2. The present appellant filed a suit for injunction
and possession on the basis of a registered sale deed
dated 28.4.66 executed by Smt Yashoda Bai in his
favour with respect to Immovable Property including
agricultural lands and houses.
3 The property originally belonged to her husband
and after his death she got it as a limited owner and
by influx of time and by coming into force of the
Hindu Succession Act, she acquired the rights of an
absolute owner. On 28.4.63, she adopted respondent
Nain Singh as her son and executed a document said
to be the Deed of Adoption. This document is not a
registered document and the trial court admitted it in
evidence in proof of adoption. This document, in
addition to recital of the factum of adoption in
presence of Panchayat in accordance with the
custom of the Community also contained a covenant
wherein she had stated that after this deed of
adoption her adopted son will be entitled (Hakdar) to
the whole property including movable and
immovable and she will have no right to alienate any
part of the property after this deed of adoption.
4. The trial court decreed the suit. The first appellate
court dismissed the suit setting aside the decree
passed by the trial court. The learned judge of the
High Court considering the impact of Section 12 of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act rightly
held that the adopted son, in view of the proviso (C)
to Section 12, will only be entitled to property after
the death of the adoptive mother but the learned
judge felt that the further covenant in the adoption
deed deprived her of that right and conferred that
right on the adopted son, on this basis the learned
judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that
the widow after executing this deed of adoption had
no right left in the property and therefore a transfer
executed by her will not confer any title on the
plaintiff.
JUDGEMENT
1. Section 13 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act reads as :
Right of adoptive parents to dispose of their
properties :
Subject to any agreement to the contrary, an
adoption does not deprive the adoptive father or
mother of the power to dispose of his or her property
by transfer inter vivos or by will.
This Section enacts that when the parties intend to
limit the operation of proviso (C) to Section 12, it is
open to them by an agreement and it appears that
what she included in the present deed of adoption
was an agreement to the contrary as contemplated in
Section 13 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
Act.
2. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act clearly
provides that such a document where any right in
movable property is either assigned or extinguished
will require registration. It could not be disputed that
this part of the deed which refers to creation of an
immediate right in the adopted son and the divesting
of the right of the adoptive mother in the property
will squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17(1)
(b) and therefore under Section 49 of the
Registration Act, this could not be admitted if it is
not a registered document.
3. Unfortunately, the Hon'ble Judge of the High
Court did not notice this aspect of the matter and felt
that what could not be done because of the proviso
(C) to Section 12 has been specifically provided in
the document itself but this part of the document
could not be read in evidence as it could not be
admitted. In view of this, the appeal is allowed. The
Judgments of the High Court and that of the lower
appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial
court is restored. In view of these Special
circumstances, there is no order as to costs.