Q. The only question for determination is as to if the lease required registration under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act or not.

A had granted lease to B on the following terms : "Today, 1st January 1980, I have given shop on rent to B at a rental of Rs.340/- per month, rent shall not be raised nor lowered, nor shall I eject him. But in case of his refusal to pay the rent, I shall have the right to turn him out." Decide and give reasons. (D.J.S. 1989)


Q.(a) A purchased a plot from NOIDA. Sale deed was signed by the vendee and attesting witnesses on 26.12.1984 and by the Administrator of NOIDA on 14.02.1985. The deed was not presented for registration as it was not executed "for and on behalf of Governor of U.P." The Administrator himself had no right, title or interest in the property to convey to the vendee. On 01.07.1986 Administrator added words "on behalf of Governor of U.P." under his signature. When presented, Sub-Registrar refused to register the deed on the ground that it was not presented for registration "within four months from the date of its execution" as required by section 23 of the Registration Act. Do you agree with him. Decide and give reasons.

(b) A suit was filed for declaration of right to patta based on an unregistered deed of sale. The defendant admits the plaintiff's allegation and has no objection to the decree being passed according to the plaintiff's claim. Write judgement (D.J.S. 1990)


Q. In a suit for partition of an immovable property following document Ex.P.12 was produced by a party to prove his right and title. It read :

1. "Today after the discussion it has been mutually agreed and decided that house "rehaishi" (Residential) and the area towards it's west which lying open i.e. the area on the back of rehaishi (residential) house has come to the share of Ch. Pooran.

2. House Baithak has come to the share of Ch. Soonda. The shortage in area as compared to the house rehaishi and open area referred to, will be made good to Ch. Soonda from the field and gitwar in the eastern side.

3. Rest of the area of the filed and gitwar will be half and half of each of co-sharer. The area towards west will be given to Ch. Pooran and towards east will be given to Ch. Soonda.

This document was not registered. The question is whether it required registration under section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act before it is read in evidence. Decide. (D.J.S. 1991)


Q.(i) A became absolute owner of certain 'Inam land' under a certificate issued by the Revenue officer, (RDO). Asstt. Endowment Commissioner (AEC) objected to it by a letter to the District Collector, who, treating it to be an appeal, suspended the order of RDO pending disposal of appeal. A filed suit for declaring order of the Collector null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the Collector and AEC from enforcing it and obtained interim injunction order. A sold the land and executed a sale deed in favour of B. When the sale deed was presented for registration Sub Registrar kept pending on the written request of AEC in view of the pending civil suit. A and B are aggrieved and challenged the action of the Sub Registrar before you. Decide whether Sub Registrar can refuse or keep this sale deed pending for registration.


Q.(i) An award about partition of a house was made and signed by the Arbitrator on 28.11.1977 in a civil proceeding instituted by one of the claimants the civil Court directed the Arbitrator to file the award and it was filed in the Court on 28.11.1978. On 26.07.1978 the Court ordered ad interim injunction on the parties and arbitrator to maintain status quo. Arbitrator moved the Court for return of the award for it required to be registered within 4 months of its signing. Request was declined in view of temporary injunction order. Injunction order was vacated on 20.12.1982 and award was actually returned to the Arbitrator on 25.11.1983. Sub-Registrar registered it. One of the claimant objects to it. He says that sections 23 and 25 of Registration Act read together allow registration, at most within 8 months of the execution of the document and registration beyond that period will be void.

Was Sub-Registrar right in registering beyond that period will be void.

(ii) A, a Hindu widow owner a house. On 28.04.1963 she adopted B as her son and executed a Deed of Adoption. This document which is not registered, also contained a covenant wherein she has stated that after this Deed of Adoption her adopted son will be entitled to the whole property moveable and immovable and she will have no right to alienate any part of the property. The widow sold the house to C by a registered sale deed. C filed suit for possession against B on the basis of the sale deed. B relied upon the recital of the adoption deed to plead that A had no right to sell the house. Will you decree the suit of C? Pass a reasoned order.


Q. A obtained a loan from a bank. Bank asked A to furnish security. A accordingly executed a mortgage deed in favour of bank. The mortgage deed was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar. Later on the Sub-Registrar realized that the mortgage deed was deficiently stamped, deficiency being to the tune of Rs.29,000/-. The Sub-Registrar issued a notice to A calling upon him to pay the deficient Court fee. A challenged the said notice before High Court in a writ petition contending that after registration the sub-registrar became functus officio. So no such notice asking him to make up the deficiency in Court fee could be issued by the Sub-Registrar. How would you deal with this plea of the 
petitioner. (D.J.S. 1996)


Q. A executed a gifted deed in favour of his nephew (sister's son) in respect of some agricultural land. His brothers B, C & D filed a suit challenging the gift made by A to his nephew on the ground that all the four brothers were members of a coparceners could governed by Benaras School of Mitakshra Hindu law. So one of the coparceners could not make a gift of coparcenery property without the consent of other coparceners. In defence, A pleaded that a mutual partition had already taken place in July 1952 and the property in question had fallen to his share so he could validly gift it to his nephew. He relied on a list Ex.D, of the coparcenery properties which were mutually divided. The execution of Ex.D, was admitted by the plaintiffs but they contended that Ex.D, amounted to a partition deed which required compulsory registration under section 17 of Registration Act. Can Ex.D, be taken into consideration for ascertaining the intention and conduct of the parties as to the disruption of coparcenery? Decide the case giving reasons for your decision.


Q.(a) Two brothers were having immovable properties and business in U.S.A. and India. Both have equal shares. Differences arose and they decided to divide and distribute their jointly held assets. They entered into agreement and appointed their elder brother as sole arbitrator. During pendency of the arbitration proceedings, in U.S.A., parties settled their differences by entering into detailed agreement. They got their respective package of properties and agreed to execute transfer and closing documents to give effect thereto. Accordingly award was made and was confirmed by Court in U.S.A. One of the said two brothers applied to Bombay High Court for enforcement of the Award. High Court after contest ordered the Award to be filed and pronounced judgment according to Award. The other brother has filed appeal against it inter-alia on the ground that award which declares rights of parties in respect of immovable properties was compulsorily required to be registered under the provision of the Registration Act, 1908 and since the award was not registered, the impugned judgment and decree passed which are in terms of the said unregistered award are to be set aside. This is opposed on the ground that award did not require registration as it merely created right to obtain another document and rather divides equally business and properties between them; and Award has already merged in judgment and when decree is passed by Court, it does not require registration. Discuss the merits of their respective contentions and decide the appeal.

(b) Examine whether the following documents require compulsory registration, giving reasons in support of your answers:

(i) An adoption deed.

(ii) A will relating to ten shops and two flats in Defence Colony, New Delhi.

(iii) An agreement to sell a house in Friends Colony, New Delhi for Rs.90 lakh. (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. Vide agreement to sell A agreed to sell her house to B for Rs.20 lakh and received a sum of Rs.10,000/- performance on the ground that A had avoided to perform her part of agreement. In trial, A contended that receipt/agreement could not have been exhibited nor relied upon because it was not a registered document, as by this document parties created right, title and interest and passed on consideration regarding an immovable property, value of which was more than Rs.100. Determine the contention and give your decision.


Q. B transfers a house worth Rs.1,00,000/- to M by means of a registered instrument. The deed of conveyance is dated 1st July, 1987. The deed is presented for registration on 1st October, 1987. The registration is made by Registrar on 21st January, 1988 after receiving certificate under section 230A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On what day M becomes the owner of the house?


Q. What is the effect of non-Registration of documents requiring compulsory Registration under Registration Act, 1908. (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. A lease deed is signed and executed on 04.07.1989. It is presented for registration on 06.11.1989. Can it be registered? (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. A executed a sale document outside India on 02.01.1994. He come to India on 06.06.1994 and presented the document for registration. Would the Registrar accept the documents? (D.J.S. 1999)


Q. In 1975, a suit was filed for partition of movable and immovable properties. Parties were near relations, who claimed succession through common ancestor. During trial in 1993, the parties filed application under O. XXIII R.3 C.P.C. seeking to pass decree in terms of family settlement Ex.C-1 and compromises Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3. By this compromise, they had mutually settled and adjusted their rights and claims in the suit properties, had mutually relinquished rights in favour of each other and these contained mutual covenants transferring some of the properties inter se. Court accepted it and passed compromise decree on 25.08.1993. In 1995, three of the defendants filed application for setting aside that compromise decree and raised a legal objection that the decree passed on the basis of compromise affects several immovable properties; it required compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and the decree not having been registered is void and unenforceable. This is disputed by the other parties. Deal with this objection and give your decision. (D.J.S. 2000)


Q. Fishery rights in Jalkar were settled with A for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 at 1,65,000 per year. State Govt. made deposit of settlement fee of Rs.1,65,000/- by A sine qua non to issue of order of settlement. A deposited that sum, but was informed that Govt. had taken a decision that settlement for 1976-77 be done on additional condition of A depositing arrears of the previous year, failing which settlement be issued by highest bid. On 02.07.1976 A filed writ for direction to Govt. to execute lease in his favour for 1976-77 and 1977-78 and not to disturb his possession over fishery right in question during currency of term of lease. Writ is opposed inter alia on the ground that as settlement was no evidenced by a registered instrument, A had not right, title or interest, which could be enforced by him. The point to be decided is whether instrument granting right to catch fish in tank is compulsorily registerable instrument? Will it make any difference in case duration of lease was only nine months?


Q.(a) In 1985, Food Corporation of India invited offers from land-owners for construction of plinth and other facilities for storage purposes and after construction, to lease to FCI on rent for three years. B submitted offer. After negotiations, offer of B at negotiated rate was accepted and agreement dated 12.06.1986 was entered into giving details of terms on which B agreed to lease out plinths after construction under lease agreement to be executed between the parties in prescribed proforma. Time was essence of the agreement and in case of delay in construction or faulty workmanship, FCI was not bound to take plints on lease. B borrowed loan from Bank and raised construction. FCI took possession on 24.01.1987, but served notice of vacant on 26.09.1988. B filed suit for damages for breach of contract. Main defence of FCI is that in absence of registered lease deed the parties were not bound by the period of lease as the agreement was unenforceable and in absence of valid agreement, tenancy was month to month and liable to be terminated under section 106 of the T.P. Act and hence the plaintiff cannot claim damages. Question is whether or not agreement dated 12.06.1986 required compulsory registration under section 17 of the Registration Act and what is its effect? Decide giving reasons.

(b) A filed suit against B for specific performance seeking direction to register sale deed Ex. A6 and for injunction or possession of immovable property alleging that B duly executed sale deed in his favour for a consideration of Rs.3,200/-, but did not get it registered thereafter. B says that he signed it as a result of fraud and misrepresentation by A, who took advantage of his illiteracy and that he had agreed to sell suit land to A for Rs.16,000/-. Trial Court Registration Act. In appeal, suit was decreed holding that section 77 will not come in the way. B filed second appeal on the ground that section 77 of the Registration Act is a complete code in itself providing for enforcement of right to get a document registered and Court cannot direct registration of document after expiry of period mentioned in the Act and that Ex.A6 is sale deed and being unregistered, a decree for specific performance based on the same could be granted and that sale consideration was Rs.16,000/- and not Rs.3,200/- as written in that document. Decide the appeal referring to relevant provision of law relating to points involved. (D.J.S. 2000)


Also check:


Other Links: 


About Us: