The High Court dismissed an appeal against a lower court's order rejecting a suit for reconveyance of agricultural land. No substantial question of law arose. The court held that the document did not require registration as agreements for reconveyance do not create interests in immovable property.
The appeal was dismissed as it had no merit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SECOND APPEAL NO.906 OF 2005
Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Pawar and Ors. ..Appellants
Versus
Shri Shankar Bhau Pawar ..Respondent
Mr.T.S.Talkute for appellants
CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.
DATE : 30TH AUGUST, 2005
P.C.:
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants
against the judgment and order passed by Addl. District
Judge, Satara dated 20.10.2004 dismissing the appeal and
confirming the judgment and order passed by Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Koregaon dated 20.8.1999 dismissing the
plaintiffs’ suit.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellants. Perused the record.
3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for
reconveyance of sale deed of an agricultural land Gat
No.356, which was executed on 6.9.1973 by appellant no.1
: 2 :
and deceased Hariba Pawar. The defendant challenged the
suit on various grounds, inter alia, submitted that the
allegations made by the plaintiffs were false and
therefore, sought dismissal of the suit.
. The learned trial court adjudicated the dispute
on merits and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
had proved that the suit agreement was deed of
reconveyance. On the other hand it was held that the
plaintiffs had surrendered right of reconveyance in
favour of defendant and suit came to be dismissed. The
appeal was carried to the District Court. The learned
Addl. District Judge after hearing both the parties
concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court
and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal.
4. At the outset it must be noted that there is
absolutely no substantial question of law involved in
this appeal. The only question sought to be raised at
this stage is with regard to the question whether the
suit document amounts to deed of reconveyance and if so
whether it requires registration under Section 17 of the
Registration Act? In this regard the lower appellate
court has relied upon ruling of Madras High Court in the
: 3 :
case of Chinnakkal vs Chinna Thumbi Gounden reported in
AIR 1934 Madras 703 wherein it is observed that "an
agreement for reconveyance does not create any interest
in immovable property and therefore, there was no
necessity for registering such an agreement, where the
agreement of reconveyance does not create any interest
in the immovable property, a release of any right under
that document will also not create any interest in the
immovable property and as such no registration is called
for". This view is also taken by this court earlier on
which the Madras High Court has put reliance.
. Under the circumstances there is no doubt
whatsoever that no registration is required for the suit
document. In the result there is no merit in the appeal
and appeal stands dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit document amounts to a deed of reconveyance.
Whether an agreement for reconveyance requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chinnakkal vs Chinna Thumbi GoundenReferred¶18
Chinnakkal vs Chinna Thumbi Gounden AIR 1934 Madras 703 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Vishnu Bhagwan Pawar and Ors.
Shri Shankar Bhau Pawar
P.V. Kakade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court