Skip to content


Muthayya Vs. Venkataratnam and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad553
AppellantMuthayya
RespondentVenkataratnam and anr.
Excerpt:
registration act - act iii of 1877, section 17--withdrawal petition setting out terms of compromise filed in court but not registered--subsequent suit for land referred to in the compromise--necessity for registration. - 1. we think the decree of the district judge is right. the document on which the plaintiff relies was really a petition for withdrawal and was stamped only as such.2. if it is to be relied upon as proof of his case by the plaintiff, it requires to be registered under section 17 of the registration act. the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. We think the decree of the District Judge is right. The document on which the plaintiff relies was really a petition for withdrawal and was stamped only as such.

2. If it is to be relied upon as proof of his case by the plaintiff, it requires to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //