AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madgavkar, J.—The question in this appeal is whether the deed and its counterpart (Exhibits 39-1 and 39-2) of April 3, 1926, between the plaintiff-respondent Mansukhlal and his father, defendant No. 1 Bhagvandas, required registration u/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The trial Court held that they did; the District Court held that they did not. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 appeal.
The question in this case must depend on the language and construction of the documents in question. In the case of these documents, first of all, these are documents entered into by defendant No. 1 and plaintiff; next each agreed that the son on the one hand "if he receives certain property agrees to give up his claim to the rest for himself and Bapulal, sons of the defendant." The father equally agrees to get the former properties transferred to the son''s name and to execute in writing any legal document that may be necessary. Possession was not given. And in these circumstances we agree with the learned District Judge and hold that the documents fall within the class of documents referred to by their Lordships in the Privy Council in 27 CWN 561 (Privy Council) and in Ramling Parwatayya v. Bhagwant Sambhuappa ILR (1925) 50 Bom 334: 28 Bom. L.R. 591, and not within the classes of documents such as those mentioned in Skinner v. Skinner (929) L.R. 56 IndAp 363 : 32 Bom. L.R. 1. The documents, therefore, do not require registration and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Baker, J.
I agree.