Whether relinquishment deed of leasehold interest in partnership firm is compulsorily registrable?

According to the Plaintiff, the ``gift`` is not valid as it is not made by registered instrument and attested by two witnesses as required by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act . The Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that the share in the partnership property even if it includes immovable assets is not immovable property. In view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa MANU/SC/0281/1966 : [1966]3SCR400 . Followed in Commr. of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Juggilal Kamlapat MANU/SC/0130/1966 : [1967]63ITR292(SC) . I uphold the submission of Mr. Vyas, learned Counsel for the Defendant, that the interest of partners in a partnership firm, although it owns immovable property including leasehold interest, is movable property and, therefore, a document evidencing relinquishment of interest of one partner is not compulsorily registrable. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Suit No. 756 of 1977

Decided On: 20.06.1989

Nariman Aspandiar Irani Vs. Adi Merwan Irani

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.H. Guttal, J.

Citation: AIR 1989 Bom 362,1990 MHLJ 265

Print Page

When family settlement is compulsorily registrable?

The tenor of the aforesaid document shows that the right in

the property has been created for the first time in favour of the plaintiff

through the family settlement (Ex.P-1), the plot in question was allotted

to defendant from the defence quota being an Army Officer. As already

discussed, it is not established that the plaintiff has paid or contributed

any amount for the purchase of the said plot, so he was not having any

pre-existing rights in the said plot. So, the family settlement (Ex.P-1) was

compulsorily registrable, but the same is an unregistered document, hence

the same is in admissible in evidence and will not convey any right, title

or interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, he cannot

claim himself to be the owner in possession of the plot in dispute to the

extent of 50% share by the dint of the family settlement Ex.P-1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

 AT CHANDIGARH.

R.S.A No.1526 of 2014(O&M)

Date of decision : 01.12.2016

Hargursharan Singh

V

Lt. Col. Hargobind Singh

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH

Citation: AIR 2017 P&H 3

Print Page

Whether gift of self acquired immovable property as mentioned in decree requires registration?

 The terms of the family settlement are not on record. As mentioned above, the family settlement could relate to the ancestral as well as self- acquired property of Bhagwana or only the ancestral property. It appears that it related only to the ancestral property and not the self-acquired property (hence the reference to a hibba). The decree relating to 32 kanals of land did not require compulsory registration, as mentioned above. However, the self acquired property of Bhagwana that is 20 kanals, therefore, in view of the law laid down in Bhoop Singh the gift of 20 kanals of land by Bhagwana in favour of Ram Singh, notwithstanding the decree in the first suit, requires compulsory registration since it created, for the first time, right, title or interest in immovable property of a value greater than Rs.100/- in favour of Ram Singh.

Supreme Court of India

Phool Patti And Anr vs Ram Singh(Dead)Through Lrs. & Anr on 6 January, 2015

Bench: Madan B. Lokur, C. Nagappan

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1240 OF 2005    

Citation;2015(4)MhLJ626(SC),2015MPLJ344(SC),

2015(1)PLJR364,(2015)3SCC164,                 

Print Page