Skip to content


Palavalasa Appalaswamy and anr. Vs. Sri Dantaluri Narayana Gajapathiraju and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.446
AppellantPalavalasa Appalaswamy and anr.
RespondentSri Dantaluri Narayana Gajapathiraju and ors.
Cases Referred and Natesan Chetti v. Vengu Nachiar
Excerpt:
registration act (xvi of 1908), section 17(2)(v) - compromise of suit embodying an agreement, to exchange lands, whether compulsorily registrable--suit framed on title--plaintiff, whether can amend plaint by asking for specific performance. - - the decree in that suit has not been produced, but it clearly appears from the judgment that the compromise was not embodied in the decree, but merely remained among the records of the court......embodied in the decree, but merely remained among the records of the court.2. the compromise is in effect an agreement for the exchange of lands, and the parties contemplated that it would be carried into effect by a decree of the court, but this was not done, and the agreement still remains to be effectuated by a document of transfer of the property.3. the compromise being an agreement did not require registration and it is not necessary to consider the conflicting decisions as to registration of records of the court, such as those in raoula parti chellamanna v. llama row 12 ind. cas. 317 : (1911) 2 m.w.n. 265 and natesan chetti v. vengu nachiar 3 ind. cas. 701. the suit has been framed upon title and not for specific performance, and we set aside the decrees in both courts and give.....
Judgment:

1. The suit is upon a compromise filed in a former suit, which has not been registered. The decree in that suit has not been produced, but it clearly appears from the judgment that the compromise was not embodied in the decree, but merely remained among the records of the Court.

2. The compromise is in effect an agreement for the exchange of lands, and the parties contemplated that it would be carried into effect by a decree of the Court, but this was not done, and the agreement still remains to be effectuated by a document of transfer of the property.

3. The compromise being an agreement did not require registration and it is not necessary to consider the conflicting decisions as to registration of records of the Court, such as those in Raoula Parti Chellamanna v. llama Row 12 Ind. Cas. 317 : (1911) 2 M.W.N. 265 and Natesan Chetti v. Vengu Nachiar 3 Ind. Cas. 701. The suit has been framed upon title and not for specific performance, and we set aside the decrees in both Courts and give leave to amend the plaint by asking for the specific performance of the agreement (Exhibit A) in Original Suit No. 610 of 1906, subject to any objection as to limitation. Costs in all Courts will abide the result. The suit is remanded to the District Munsif.


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