Page 1

                        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2005  

Phool Patti and Anr.        …Appellants

Versus

Ram Singh (Dead) Through Lrs. & Anr.   …Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1.     On  3rd November,  1980  Ram  Singh  (nephew  of  

Bhagwana) filed Suit No. 630 of 1980 in the Court of the  

Senior  Sub-Judge,  Sonepat (Haryana).   He stated in the  

plaint  that  52  kanals  of  land  in  the  revenue  estate  of  

Nizampur Majra in district Sonepat was joint Hindu family  

property.  There was also a residential  house situated in  

the village but it is not clear whether the residential house  

stood on the said land or was on a separate parcel of land.  

However,  the  appeal  before  us  proceeded  on  the  basis  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 1 of 16

Page 2

that the residential house is on the 52 kanals of land.   

2. The  plaint  filed  by  Ram Singh  further  stated  that  

some differences had arisen between the members of the  

joint Hindu family and as a result of a family settlement,  

the said land was given to him. Ram Singh further stated  

that he was in  cultivating possession of the agricultural  

land and in physical possession of the residential house.

3. Ram Singh averred that Bhagwana refused to admit  

his (Ram Singh’s) claim to the agricultural land and the  

residential house and in effect sought to negate the family  

settlement.  Accordingly,  Ram  Singh  prayed  for  a  

declaration  that  he  is  the  owner  and  in  cultivating  

possession  of  the  agricultural  land  and  in  physical  

possession of the residential house.

4. On 5th November, 1980 Bhagwana filed his written  

statement admitting the entire claim set up by Ram Singh.  

It appears that Bhagwana’s statement was also recorded  

subsequently.  In  view  of  the  written  statement  as  also  

Bhagwana’s  oral  statement,  the  Senior  Sub-Judge,  

Sonepat passed a consent decree on 24th November, 1980  

and decreed the suit  as  prayed for  by Ram Singh.  The  

result of the decree was that Ram Singh was declared the  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 2 of 16

Page 3

owner  in  possession  of  52  kanals  of  land,  that  is,  the  

agricultural land and the residential house in the revenue  

estate of Nizampur Majra in district Sonepat.

5. In view of the consent decree, there was no occasion  

for the Senior Sub-Judge to decide whether there was or  

was not any family settlement, nor did the occasion arise  

for him to specifically decide whether the said land was  

self-acquired or ancestral.  

6. However, two conclusions can be drawn quite safely: (i)  

There  was  no  denial  of  the  existence  of  a  family  

settlement  but  on  the  contrary  this  was  admitted  by  

Bhagwana;  (ii)  The  family  settlement  could  be  with  

reference to both the ancestral  property as well  as the  

self-acquired  property  or  only  with  reference  to  the  

ancestral property.

7. Bhagwana  had  two  daughters,  namely  Phool  Patti  

and Phool  Devi.   He had no son.   On 11th  March,  1982  

another nephew of Bhagwana, that is, Shobha Ram along  

with Phool Patti and Phool Devi filed Suit No. 234 of 1982  

before the Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat.  In that suit Ram  

Singh  was  the  first  defendant  and  Bhagwana  was  the  

second defendant.

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 3 of 16

Page 4

8. It  was  stated  in  the  plaint  that  Bhagwana  is  the  

owner of 52 kanals of land which was inherited by him  

from his lineal male ascendant and that the properties are  

ancestral  in  his  hands.   It  was  averred  that  Bhagwana  

could not gift the agricultural land and residential house to  

anybody thereby depriving his legal heirs (Phool Patti and  

Phool Devi) of their rights in the disputed property.

9. It  was  further  averred  in  the  plaint  that  the  decree  

dated 24th November,  1980 was obtained collusively  by  

Ram Singh and that the admissions made by Bhagwana in  

the  suit  filed  by  Ram  Singh  were  without  applying  his  

mind.  It was stated that there was no family settlement  

whatsoever  and  that  the  decree  dated  24th November,  

1980 amounted to a gift made by Bhagwana in favour of  

Ram  Singh.   This  could  only  be  through  a  written  

instrument that was duly stamped and registered.  Since  

the gift was neither written, nor stamped, nor registered it  

could not be acted upon.

10. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed  

three issues as follows:- 1. Whether  judgment  and  decree  dated  24.11.1980  is  void,  illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs?

2. Whether  any  family  settlement  was  made  between  the  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 4 of 16

Page 5

parties?

3. Relief.  

11. In  support  of  the  plaint,  Shobha  Ram  (another  

nephew of Bhagwana) entered the witness box and stated  

that there was no family settlement and that Bhagwana  

was the owner of  the ancestral  land and house.   Phool  

Patti and Phool Devi did not enter the witness box at all.  

12. On  27th January,  1983  Bhagwana  entered  the  

witness  box  and  stated  that  he  “gave”  the  disputed  

property to Ram Singh under his free will treating him as  

his  son.   He  also  stated  that  the  entire  land  was  not  

ancestral – 20 kanals were purchased by Bhagwana while  

32 kanals were ancestral property.  

13. Ram Singh also entered the witness box and stated  

that  Bhagwana had given him his  property  through the  

civil suit filed by Ram Singh against Bhagwana and that  

the disputed property was given by Bhagwana of his own  

free will.  Ram Singh also made a mention of some hibba  

(gift) but it is not clear whether the reference was to the  

gift of the disputed property or some other land. However,  

for the purposes of the present appeal, it is assumed that  

Ram Singh referred to a hibba of the disputed property in  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 5 of 16

Page 6

his favour by Bhagwana.

14. The Trial Court gave its decision on 31st May, 1983  

and  it  was  held  that  the  decree  dated  24th November,  

1980 was a collusive decree and a nullity and therefore  

illegal and void. In effect,  Bhagwana made a gift  of the  

disputed property in favour of Ram Singh and that the gift  

required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(a) of  

the Registration Act, 1908.  It was also held that there was  

no family  settlement.   The Trial  Court  did  not  give  any  

finding whether the disputed property was self-acquired or  

ancestral.

15. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Trial Judge,  

Ram Singh preferred Civil Appeal No. 43/13 in the Court of  

the Additional  District  Judge,  Sonepat.   By its  judgment  

and order, the First Appellate Court held that Shobha Ram  

had no locus standii  in the matter at all, since he had no  

right, title or interest in the disputed property.  As regards  

the claim of Phool Patti and Phool Devi, it was held that  

they could not challenge the gift made by Bhagwana in  

favour of Ram Singh. It  was observed that they did not  

even enter the witness box to challenge the decree dated  

24th November,  1980 and that Bhagwana was alive and  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 6 of 16

Page 7

had  supported  the  judgment  and  decree.  As  such,  the  

challenge made by Phool Patti and Phool Devi could not be  

sustained.  The First Appellate Court further held that the  

decree  dated  24th November,  1980  was  not  a  collusive  

decree since Bhagwana had supported it.  Accordingly, the  

appeal filed by Ram Singh was allowed and the decree of  

the Trial Court dated 31st May, 1983 was set aside.

16. The  First  Appellate  Court  noted  that  the  learned  

counsel for Shobha Ram, Phool Patti  and Phool Devi did  

not  challenge the transfer  of  the  disputed property  but  

challenged the collusive decree.  It appears that in view of  

this,  the  First  Appellate  Court  did  not  examine  the  

question  whether  there  was  any  family  settlement  and  

whether  the  disputed  property  was  self-acquired  or  

ancestral. The second issue framed by the Trial Court was,  

therefore,  not  even  adverted  to  by  the  First  Appellate  

Court.

17. Feeling aggrieved by the setting aside of the decree  

of  the  Trial  Court,  Phool  Patti  and  Phool  Devi  preferred  

Second Appeal No. 2176 of 1985 in the Punjab & Haryana  

High Court.   The respondents in the Second Appeal were  

Ram Singh, Shobha Ram and Bhagwana.

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 7 of 16

Page 8

18. The  High  Court,  by  the  impugned  judgment  and  

order, dismissed the Second Appeal while holding that the  

disputed  property  admittedly  was  the  self-acquired  

property of Bhagwana; the decree suffered by Bhagwana  

on 24th November, 1980 was of his own free will and was  

for the services rendered by Ram Singh in looking after  

and  taking  care  of  Bhagwana;  only  Bhagwana  could  

challenge the decree dated 24th November, 1980 but he  

did not do so and finally, that Phool Patti and Phool Devi  

had no  locus standii to challenge the decree dated 24th  

November, 1980.

19. When this appeal came up for consideration on 21st  

March, 2009 a Bench of two learned judges considered the  

submissions of learned counsel, particularly with reference  

to  two  decisions  cited  at  the  Bar,  namely,  K.  

Raghunandan and Ors. v. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors.1  

and Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major.2   The Bench  

was of the view that  there was an inconsistency in  the  

decision of this Court in the two cases mentioned above. It  

was observed as follows:- “9. Since  the  consent  decree  dated  24.11.1980  had  been  held by the First Appellate Court to be not collusive, the High  

1 2008 (9) SCALE 215 = (2008) 13 SCC 102 2 (1995) 5 SCC 709 C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 8 of 16

Page 9

Court in our opinion rightly refused to interfere with that finding  of fact.

10. It was then urged by the learned counsel for the appellant  that there was violation of the Section 17 of the Registration Act,  1908.

11. In this connection, it may be noted that Section 17(2)(vi)  of the Registration Act states that “nothing in clauses (b) and (c)  of sub-section (1) of Section 17 applies to:

“any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to  be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other  than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding”.

12. In our opinion the exception mentioned in Section 17(2) (vi)  means  that  if  a  suit  is  filed  by  the  plaintiff  in  respect  of  property A, then a decree in that suit in respect of immovable  property B (which was not the subject-matter of the suit at all)  will require registration.  This is the view taken by this Court in  K. Raghunandan & Ors. v. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors.  2008  (9) Scale 215.

13. However,  a  different  view  was  taken  by  this  Court  in  Bhoop Singh v.     Ram Singh Major   1995 (5) SCC 709 in which  it is stated that: “….We would think that the exception engrafted is meant to cover that  decree or order of a court, including a decree or order expressed to be  made on a compromise, which declares the pre-existing right and does  not  by  itself  create  new  right,  title  or  interest  in  praesenti  in  immovable property of the value of Rs. 100 or upwards…….”  

14. In our opinion there seems to be inconsistency between  the decisions of this Court in  Bhoop Singh’s case (supra) and  K. Raghunandan’s case (supra) in so far as the Registration  Act is concerned.  Prima facie it seems to us that the decision in  Bhoop Singh’s case (supra) does not lay down the correct law  since Section 17(2)(vi) on its plain reading has nothing to do with  any  pre-existing  right.   All  that  seems  to  have  been  stated  therein is that if a decree is passed regarding some immovable  property which is  not  a subject-matter of  the suit  then it  will  require registration.  As already explained above, if a suit is filed  in  respect  of  property  A  but  the  decree  is  in  respect  of  immovable property B, then the decree so far as it  relates to  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 9 of 16

Page 10

immovable property B will require registration.  This seems to be  the  plain  meaning  of  clause  (vi)  of  Section  17(2)  of  the  Registration Act.

15. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that the Court  cannot  add  words  to  the  statute  or  change  its  language,  particularly when on a plain reading the meaning seems to be  clear.  Since there is no mention of any pre-existing right in the  exception in clause (vi) we have found it difficult to accept the  views in Bhoop Singh’s case (supra).

16. It  seems that there is  inconsistency in the decisions of  this  Court  in  Bhoop  Singh’s case  (supra)  and  K.  Raghunandan’s case  (supra)  and  since  we  are  finding  it  difficult  to  agree  with  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Bhoop  Singh’s case  (supra),  the  matter  should  be  considered  by  a  larger Bench of this Court.”3

20. The appeal was then placed before a Bench of three  

learned judges of this Court and by an order dated 24th  

July, 2014 it was held, in the following words, that there  

was no inconsistency between the two decisions: “The  learned  counsels  have  submitted  that  there  is  no  inconsistency in the judgments referred to in the order dated 31st  March, 2009. Upon  hearing  the  learned  counsel  we  also  do  not  find  any  inconsistency between the judgments delivered in the cases of  (i) Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major & Ors. [(1995) 5 SCC 709]  and (ii) Raghunandan & Ors v. Ali Hussain Sabir & Ors. [(2008)  13 SCC 102]. In view of the afore-stated circumstances, we refer the matter  back to the concerned Court so that the appeal can be decided  on merits.”   

21. The appeal was then sent back to a Bench of two  

judges for a decision on the appeal on merits.  It is under  

3 (2009) 13 SCC 22 C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 10 of 16

Page 11

these circumstances that it has come up for final disposal.  

22. On  these  broad  facts,  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants Phool Patti and Phool Devi contended that the  

decree dated 24th November, 1980 was a collusive decree.  

In fact, a false case of a family settlement had been made  

out by Ram Singh.  In reality,  Bhagwana had gifted the  

disputed  property  to  Ram  Singh  and  that  required  

compulsory  registration  under  Section  17(1)(a)  of  the  

Registration Act,  1908.  Bhagwana had not  only avoided  

payment of registration charges but also stamp duty and  

had  played  a  fraud  upon  the  Trial  Court  in  the  first  

instance.

23. It was submitted that the disputed property was not  

the  self-acquired  property  of  Bhagwana  and  being  

ancestral  property,  Phool  Patti  and  Phool  Devi  had  an  

interest in the disputed property and would have inherited  

it on the death of Bhagwana.  

24. It was further submitted by learned counsel that if it  

is  assumed that  the decree dated 24th November,  1980  

was not a collusive decree and that no gift had been made  

by Bhagwana in favour of Ram Singh, then a right in the  

disputed property was created for the first time in favour  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 11 of 16

Page 12

of Ram Singh and this required compulsory registration.   

25. The  sum  and  substance  of  the  submissions  of  

learned counsel  for  the  appellants  is  that  if  the decree  

dated  24th November,  1980  is  a  collusive  decree,  then  

Bhagwana had, in reality, gifted the disputed property to  

Ram Singh and the gift was required to be compulsorily  

registered; but if the decree is not a collusive decree then  

an interest had been created in the disputed property in  

favour of Ram Singh for the first time by a decree of a  

court and therefore the transfer of the disputed property  

was  required  to  be  compulsorily  registered.  Either  way,  

according to learned counsel, the transfer of the disputed  

property by Bhagwana to Ram Singh required compulsory  

registration.  

26. The  basic  premise  on  which  the  case  of  the  

appellants  rests  is  that  the  consent  decree  dated  24th  

November, 1980 was a collusive decree. However, in the  

order dated 21st March, 2009 it  was specifically held by  

this  court  that  “Since  the  consent  decree  dated  

24.11.1980 had been held by the First Appellate Court to  

be  not  collusive,  the  High  Court  in  our  opinion  rightly  

refused  to  interfere  with  that  finding  of  fact.”  This  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 12 of 16

Page 13

conclusion cannot  now be challenged by the appellants  

and we too are bound by this conclusion. The only doubt  

that this court had was with regard to what appeared to be  

an inconsistency between two decisions of  this  court.  A  

Bench of three judges of this court has now held that there  

is no inconsistency between the two decisions. That issue  

is also no longer open for discussion.  

27.  In  the  welter  of  conflicting  and  sometimes  

contradictory facts, the only statement that can be relied  

upon  is  that  of  Bhagwana  himself  who  stated  in  the  

witness box on 27th January, 1983 (in the second suit) that  

the entire disputed property was not ancestral but that 20  

kanals  were  purchased  by  him  while  32  kanals  were  

ancestral property.  

28.  If that be so, then Bhagwana was entitled to gift 20  

kanals of land to Ram Singh which he did. As regards the  

remaining 32 kanals, Bhagwana accepted the existence of  

a family settlement, and the Trial Court (in the first suit)  

did accept that there was a family settlement. It is in this  

family  settlement  that  32  kanals  of  land,  being  the  

ancestral property of Bhagwana came to the share of Ram  

Singh. It is true that in the second suit it was held that  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 13 of 16

Page 14

there was no family settlement but that was on the basis  

that  the  decree  dated  24th November,  1980  was  a  

collusive decree. But if  it  is held,  as indeed it  has been  

held in the order dated 21st March, 2009 that the consent  

decree was not a collusive decree, then it must follow that  

the finding that there was no family settlement (arrived at  

in the second suit) must be held incorrect, and we do so,  

particularly in the absence of any contrary finding on this  

issue  by  the  First  Appellate  Court  or  the  High  Court.  

Consequently, in terms of the family settlement, 32 kanals  

of  land  originally  belonging  to  Bhagwana  came  to  the  

share of Ram Singh in the family settlement. This explains  

the statement of Bhagwana that he “gave” the disputed  

property to Ram Singh under his free will treating him as  

his son, that is, 20 kanals of his self acquired property and  

32 kanals of his ancestral property that then came to the  

share of Ram Singh through the family settlement.

29. What follows from this is that 20 kanals of land was  

gifted  by  Bhagwana  to  Ram  Singh.  This  gift  clearly  

requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(a) of  

the Registration Act,  1908 (the Act).  Ram Singh’s  claim  

over 32 kanals of land was acknowledged in the consent  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 14 of 16

Page 15

decree dated 24th November,  1980. This did not require  

compulsory registration in view of Section 17 (2) (vi) of the  

Act.   

30. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  cited  three  

decisions  to  support  his  contention  that  the  consent  

decree  was  collusive  and  therefore  of  no  effect.  He  

referred  to  Nagubai  Ammal  v.  B.  Shama Rao,4 Rup  

Chand  Gupta  v.  Raghuvanshi  Pvt.  Ltd.5 and  

Ramchandra  G.  Shinde  v.  State  of  Maharashtra.6  

However, in view of the conclusion arrived at by this court  

in its order dated 21st March, 2009 we are not inclined to  

reopen  the  issue,  as  indeed  we  cannot.  Nor  do  we  

disagree  with  the  finding  so  as  to  refer  the  issue  to  a  

larger Bench.  

31. It was contended that Phool Patti and Phool Devi, the  

daughters of Bhagwana had the necessary locus standii to  

challenge the gift made by Bhagwana to Ram Singh. While  

this may or may not be so (we are not commenting on the  

issue) the question of a challenge to the gift of 20 kanals  

of land does not arise on the facts of this case. There was  

no  pleading  to  this  effect,  no  issue  was  framed in  this  4 1956 SCR 463 5 (1964) 7 SCR 760, 763 6 (1993) 4 SCC 216, 225 C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 15 of 16

Page 16

regard in the suit filed by Phool Patti and Phool Devi, nor  

was any evidence led to challenge the validity of the gift.  

It is too late in the day for them to question the validity of  

the gift in favour of Ram Singh for the first time in this  

court without any foundation, factual or otherwise, having  

been laid for a decision on this issue.

32. The  terms  of  the  family  settlement  are  not  on  

record. As mentioned above, the family settlement could  

relate to the ancestral as well as self-acquired property of  

Bhagwana or only the ancestral property. It appears that it  

related only  to  the ancestral  property  and not  the self-

acquired property (hence the reference to a  hibba).  The  

decree  relating  to  32  kanals  of  land  did  not  require  

compulsory  registration,  as  mentioned  above.  However,  

the self acquired property of Bhagwana that is 20 kanals,  

therefore, in view of the law laid down in  Bhoop Singh  

the gift of 20 kanals of land by Bhagwana in favour of Ram  

Singh, notwithstanding the decree in the first suit, requires  

compulsory registration since it created, for the first time,  

right,  title  or  interest  in  immovable property  of  a  value  

greater than Rs.100/- in favour of Ram Singh.

33. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 16 of 16

Page 17

allowed and disposed of in the manner indicated above.  

No costs.

       ……...…………………………J ( Madan B. Lokur )

..........……………………….J ( C. Nagappan )

New Delhi; January 06, 2015  

C.A. No.1240 of 2005                                                 Page 17 of 16