Patha Muthammal And Ors. vs Esup Rowther And Ors. on 2 February, 1906

Madras High Court
Patha Muthammal And Ors. vs Esup Rowther And Ors. on 2 February, 1906
Equivalent citations: (1906) ILR 29 Mad 365
Bench: Moore, S Nair


1. The plaintiffs are the defendants Nos. 1 to 7 in Original Suit No. 43 of 1901, and this suit is based on a razinamah (exhibit A) presented to the District Munsif during the trial of that suit. The question that we have to decide is whether exhibit A required registration or not. The Subordinate Judge finds that registration was not necessary on the strength of the decision of the Privy Council in Pranal Anni v. Lakshmi Anni I.L.R. 22 Mad. 508. As we, however, read that judgment it appears to us to lead to an opposite conclusion. The District Munsif, in Original Suit No. 43 of 1901, decided that certain items of laud were to be handed over to the plaintiff in that suit, and he states that he did this in accordance with the terms of the razinamah and inasmuch as his allotment to the plaintiff did not appear to be unfavourable to those of the parties to the suit who had not joined in the razinamah. As regards all other matters set out in the razinamah he gives no opinion, but simply records that document (Section 375, Civil Procedure Code). The facts being as has been stated, it must be held that under the decision of the Privy Council already mentioned (exhibit A) required registration before it could be received as evidence in support of the case of the present plaintiff. What their Lordships there held was that the razinamah then under their consideration did not require registration in so far as its stipulations and provisions were incorporated with and given effect to by the order of the Judge and they go on to observe as follows : “The razinamah in so far as it was submitted to and was acted upon judicially by the learned Judge was in itself a step of judicial procedure not requiring registration.” It therefore follows that in so far as the razinamah was not submitted to and acted upon judicially by the Judge, it did require registration. In the present case there can be no question that the clause in the razinamah setting out the items in Schedule A which the present plaintiffs should get possession of was not submitted to and acted judicially upon by the District Munsif in the suit of 1901. We may also point out with reference to the observations of their Lordships later on in the same judgment that in the present case it cannot be argued that in the order of the District Munsif the terms of the compromise in so far as the present plaintiffs are concerned wereeither referred to or narrated. We accordingly must hold that the razinamah (exhibit A) in so far as it is relied on by the plaintiffs now is inadmissible as evidence for want of registration. We cannot accept the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the razinamah only recited an oral agreement entered into between the parties. That is not the case set up by the plaintiffs and there is nothing in exhibit A to show that there was any prior oral agreement. We accordingly set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss this suit. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information