Skip to content


Karnam Parthasarathy Vs. Karnam Barathamma - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.881
AppellantKarnam Parthasarathy
RespondentKarnam Barathamma
Excerpt:
registration act (iii of 1877), section 17 - compromise decree--covenant to pay annuity--recital that covenantor was owner of immoveable property--property made security for annuity--agreement to relinquish ownership in default of payment of annuity--claim for annuity--possession--absence of registration--how far document enforceable. - .....payment of rs. 40. the last provision amounts only to an agreement that parthasarathy and rathangapani should give up their ownership and does not itself extinguish their right. under the terms of the document, therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to sue for the amount of rs. 40 due to her every year although she could not bring the property to sale for the amount. her only other right under it is to sue for specific performance of the agreement to relinquish the property in case of default in the payment of rs. 40. the present suit is for the recovery of the property and not for specific performance. the prayer for recovery of possession cannot be sustained. the defendant admittedly has not paid the amount due to the plaintiff in february 1909. his vakil is willing that the.....
Judgment:

1. Exhibit A does not seem to be compulsorily registrable so far as the portions material for the decision of this appeal are concerned. It acknowledges the title of Parthasarathy and Rathangapani to the property in question under a prior conveyance and their possession under it for a longtime. It then contains a covenant on the part of Parthasarathy to pay Rs. 40 to the plaintiff every year and on the part of Rathangapani another sum of Rs. 40 to Lakshmamma. The property is made security for the payment of the amount; the last provision is that if the covenant to pay Rs. 40 is broken, the defaulter should relinquish his ownership in the property. The recital of the prior conveyance would not, of course, come within the terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act. The covenant to pay Rs. 40 may be enforced notwithstanding the absence of registration. The document is invalid for want of registration so far as it purports to make the property security for the payment of Rs. 40. The last provision amounts only to an agreement that Parthasarathy and Rathangapani should give up their ownership and does not itself extinguish their right. Under the terms of the document, therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled to sue for the amount of Rs. 40 due to her every year although she could not bring the property to sale for the amount. Her only other right under it is to sue for specific performance of the agreement to relinquish the property in case of default in the payment of Rs. 40. The present suit is for the recovery of the property and not for specific performance. The prayer for recovery of possession cannot be sustained. The defendant admittedly has not paid the amount due to the plaintiff in February 1909. His Vakil is willing that the plaintiff should have a decree for that amount. The decrees of the lower Courts are set aside and the plaintiff will have a decree for the sum of Rs. 40 with interest at 9 per cent, from the 1st February 1909 up to date of payment. There will be no order as to costs in any of the Courts.


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