Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908

Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Kale v Deputy Director of Consolidation Supreme CourtHelps taxpayer
  Our family settled a property dispute orally and only filed a memorandum with the authorities. Someone now says the settlement is void because it was never registered. Is it?
  No. The Supreme Court upheld an oral family arrangement of 1956 that had been acted on for seven years. Because the settlement itself was oral and the petition later filed before the Assistant Commissioner was only a memorandum for the information of the court, it created no rights in immovable property and did not require registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. A party who took benefit under the arrangement cannot afterwards resile from it. The Court also held that a party with no subsisting legal title can still be a party, because antecedent title is assumed where the others relinquish in his favour.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.