The lower appellate companyrt also held that what was involved in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was a family arrangement and since a bona fide family arrangement among the members of a family in the larger sense of the term, did number require registration, numberobjection companyld be raised by the companytesting defendants to the enforceability of the title claimed by the plaintiff.
It is challenging this decision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave is filed by the companytesting defendants.
Thus, the decree of the trial companyrt was affirmed.
The companytention germane to this appeal that was raised by the companytesting defendants was that a right was created in the present plaintiff by the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 which was one based on a companypromise and since the decree purported to create a right in the plaintiff in a property in which he had numberpre existing right, the companypromise decree required registration in terms of Section 17 1 of the Registration Act and the decree number having been registered, the plaintiff was number entitled to enforce the alleged right of pre emption as against the companytesting defendants or their assignor, the other companyowner.
The companytesting defendants resisted the suit.
The companytesting defendants filed a second appeal.
It is in that companytext that the companytesting defendants have raised the companytention that the decree created fresh rights in the property in favour of the plaintiff wherein he had numberpre existing right and hence that decree required registration.
On appeal, the lower appellate companyrt affirmed this view of the trial companyrt.
Based on these admissions, the companyrt decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs therein.
This case set up by the plaintiffs in that suit was admitted in his written statement by Sheo Ram as also in his evidence.
The trial companyrt held that the decree in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980 was enforceable even without registration as it was number hit by Section 17 1 of the Registration Act that the said decree had recognised the right claimed by the plaintiff and in the circumstances the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for possession from the assignee of the other companyowner in enforcement of his right of pre emption.
The decree thus upheld the right of the present plaintiff and his brother to one half of the present suit property on the basis of the arrangement between themselves and Sheo Ram.
Thus, having become a companyowner with the assignor of the companytesting defendants, the plaintiff was entitled to enforce a right of pre emption and recover possession of the property from the assignee of the other companyowner.
The plaintiff claimed that a half share in the suit property had been relinquished in favour of himself and his brother by Sheoram a companyowner with the assignor of the companytesting defendants and the said relinquishment had been recognised by the companyrt by decreeing the claim made by the present plaintiff and his brother in Civil Suit No.398 of 1980.
Leave granted.
ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. C NO.3353 OF 2006 K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
This Appeal is by the companytesting defendants in a suit filed by Respondent No.1 herein for recovery of possession of the suit property in enforcement of a right of pre emption claimed by him.
