Bansidhar and ors. Vs. B. Sampat Kumar Singh and ors.

Bansidhar and ors. vs B. Sampat Kumar Singh and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 31, 1927

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/480374

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/480374
Court: Allahabad
Judge: Cecil Henry Walsh, ;Lindsay, ;Sulaiman, ;Mukerji, ;Banerji, ;Ashworth and ;Iqbal Ahmad, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 31, 1927
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Section 17(2) as amended by Registration (Amendment) Act (II of 1927) - Contract for sale of land reciting payment of earnest money or part of purchase-money, whether compulsorily registrable. - - 500 is spoken of as being earnest money brat the payment was clearly a payment of a po...

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bansidhar and ors.

Respondent

B. Sampat Kumar Singh and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh
Reported In: 103Ind.Cas.417

Excerpt

registration act (xvi of 1908), section 17(2) as amended by registration (amendment) act (ii of 1927) - contract for sale of land reciting payment of earnest money or part of purchase-money, whether compulsorily registrable. - - 500 is spoken of as being earnest money brat the payment was clearly a payment of a portion of the purchase-money......98 ind. cas. 508 : 24 a.l.j. 807 : a.i.r. 1926 p.c. 94 : (1926) m.w.n. 602 : 3 o.w.n. 634 : 24 l.w. 396 : 44 c.l.j. 97 : 7 p.l.t. 661 : 28 bom. l.r. 1372 : 51 m.l.j. 788 : 31 c.w.n. 125 : 53 i.a. 214 : 28 p.l.r. 10 (p.c.).4. on the 13th december, 1920, when the case first came up before the present bench, the, hearing was adjourned in view of impending legislation and since then there has been passed the indian registration (amendment) act, 1927 (act ii of 1927) which has come into force from the 18th february, 1927. by this act there has been added to section 17, sub-section (2) of the indian registration act, 1908, the following explanation:explanation.--a document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immoveable properly shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase-money.5. the document of the 1st september, 1918, with which we are now concerned is a document of the description given in the above explanation, and it follows, therefore, that in virtue of this new enactment it did not require to be registered.6. with this answer to the question submitted for decision the record is returned to the bench concerned.walsh, sulaiman, mukerji, banerji, ashworth and iqbal ahmad, jj.7. we agree.

Full Judgment

Lindsay, J.

1. The question to be decided by this Full Bench is set out in the referring order of the 2nd December, 1926, in the following terms:

Whether the contract for sale, as embodied in the document No. 387, dated the 1st of September, 19l8, printed at page 155 of the paper-book, required to be registered

2. The paper-book mentioned is the printed record of First Appeal No. 445 of 1923, and the document at page 155 purports to be a contract for the sale of immoveable property consisting of a 14-annas share in Mahal No. 1 of Mouza Dudhai for a sum of Rs. 36,000. In the body of the deed it is recited that the executants (the proposed vendors) being in need of Rs. 500. for the purchase of the stamp for the sale-deed and for other necessary expenses have taken this sum from the proposed purchasers, credit for which is to be allowed to the purchasers against the settled price of Rs. 36,000. In the concluding portion of the deed this sum of Rs. 500 is spoken of as being earnest money brat the payment was clearly a payment of a portion of the purchase-money.

3. The reference of the question mentioned above for the decision of this Bench was rendered necessary by the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported as Dayal Singh v. Indar Singh 98 Ind. Cas. 508 : 24 A.L.J. 807 : A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 94 : (1926) M.W.N. 602 : 3 O.W.N. 634 : 24 L.W. 396 : 44 C.L.J. 97 : 7 P.L.T. 661 : 28 Bom. L.R. 1372 : 51 M.L.J. 788 : 31 C.W.N. 125 : 53 I.A. 214 : 28 P.L.R. 10 (P.C.).

4. On the 13th December, 1920, when the case first came up before the present Bench, the, hearing was adjourned in view of impending legislation and since then there has been passed the Indian Registration (Amendment) Act, 1927 (Act II of 1927) which has come into force from the 18th February, 1927. By this Act there has been added to Section 17, Sub-section (2) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, the following explanation:

Explanation.--A document purporting or operating to effect a contract for the sale of immoveable properly shall not be deemed to require or ever to have required registration by reason only of the fact that such document contains a recital of the payment of any earnest money or of the whole or any part of the purchase-money.

5. The document of the 1st September, 1918, with which we are now concerned is a document of the description given in the above explanation, and it follows, therefore, that in virtue of this new enactment it did not require to be registered.

6. With this answer to the question submitted for decision the record is returned to the Bench concerned.

Walsh, Sulaiman, Mukerji, Banerji, Ashworth and Iqbal Ahmad, JJ.

7. We agree.

Same Parties Bansidhar and ors. vs B. Sampat Kumar Singh and ors. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Cecil Henry Walsh, ;Lindsay, ;Sulaiman, ;Mukerji, ;Banerji, ;...

Land Acquisition