Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS. – Appellants
VERSUS
MANJIT KAUR & ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7764 of 2014
Decided on : 31-07-2020
(A) Property Law – Family Settlement – When by virtue of a family settlement or arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once and for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in family, such arrangement ought to be governed by a special equity peculiar to them and would be enforced if honestly made – Object of such arrangement is to protect family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strives which mar unity and solidarity of family and create hatred and bad blood between various members of family. (Paras 16)
(B) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(2)(v) – Registration of memorandum of family settlement – Document was only a memorandum of family settlement and not a document containing terms and recitals of a family settlement – Being former, no registration was necessary – Being a case of a family settlement between real brothers and having been acted upon by them, it was not open to resile from same – They were estopped from contending to contrary – Memorandum of a family settlement so arrived at was not required to be registered – Contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from stated arrangement in subject memorandum which had recorded settlement terms arrived at in past and even acted upon relating to all existing or future disputes qua subject property amongst (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to concerned property – Relief claimed by plaintiff in suit, as granted by first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by High Court – Impugned judgment and decree of High Court set aside and judgment and decree passed by first appellate Court restored in favour of plaintiff (appellants). (Paras 14, 15, 16, 19, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
High Court was pleased to set aside conclusion recorded by the first appellate Court and opined that the document which, for the first time, creates a right in favour of plaintiff in an immovable property in which he has no pre-existing right would require registration, being the mandate of law. Accordingly, the second appeal came to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court was set aside, thereby restoring the decree passed by the trial Court, vide impugned judgment. Core issue involved in this appeal is: whether memorandum of family settlement was required to be registered as interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/was transferred in favour of the plaintiff?
Findings of Court:
High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well-considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration. It must follow that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, as granted by the first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court and more so, in a casual manner, as adverted to earlier.
Result : Appeal allowed.
The core issue in this case revolves around whether a family settlement document, executed between close family members, required registration under the applicable law, given that it pertains to immovable property worth more than a specified amount. Specifically, the question is whether the document in question, which purportedly records a family settlement and has been acted upon by the parties, constitutes a transfer of interest in immovable property that necessitates registration under legal requirements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Additionally, the case examines whether the documented family arrangement, which was entered into to resolve disputes and promote family harmony, qualifies as a family settlement that is binding and enforceable without registration, considering the nature of the document and the manner in which the parties have acted upon it (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The dispute ultimately centers on the legal effect and validity of the family settlement document, especially whether its execution and subsequent actions by the parties create or transfer rights in immovable property that require formal registration, or whether it is merely a memorandum that does not necessitate such registration. The legal question is whether, under the relevant law and principles of family settlements, such an arrangement can be considered binding and enforceable without registration, or if the failure to register renders the document inadmissible or ineffective for establishing rights in the property.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
1. This appeal emanates from the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh,1[For short, “the High Court”] in R.S.A. No. 946/2004, whereby the second appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (heirs and legal representatives of Mohan Singh original defendant No. 1) came to be allowed by answering the substantial question of law formulated as under:
“Whether the document Ex.P6 required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/was transferred in favour of the plaintiff?”
2. Briefly stated, the suit was filed by the predecessor of the appellants herein Harbans Singh, son of Niranjan Singh, resident of Sangrur, Punjab against his real brothers Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner in respect of land admeasuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprising khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road and other properties referred to in the Schedule. He asserted that there was a family settlement with the intervention of respectable persons and family members, whereunder his ownership and possession in respect of the suit land including the constructions thereon (16 shops, a samadhi of his wife – Gurcharan Kaur and one service station with boundary wall) was accepted and acknowledged. Structures were erected by him in his capacity as owner of the suit land. It is stated that in the year 1970 after the purchase of suit land, some dispute arose between the brothers regarding the suit land and in a family settlement arrived at then, it was clearly understood that the plaintiff – Harbans Singh would be the owner of the suit property including constructions thereon and that the name of Mohan Singh (original defendant No. 1) and Sohan Singh (original defendant No. 2) respectively would continue to exist in the revenue record as owners to the extent of half share and the plaintiff would have no objection in that regard due to close relationship between the parties. However, the defendants raised dispute claiming half share in respect of which Harbans Singh (plaintiff) was accepted and acknowledged to be the exclusive owner and as a result of which it was decided to prepare a memorandum of family settlement incorporating the terms already settled between the parties, as referred to above. The stated memorandum was executed by all parties on 10.3.1988. However, after execution of the memorandum of family settlement dated 10.3.1988, the defendants once again raised new issues to resile from the family arrangement. As a result, Harbans Singh (plaintiff) decided to file suit for declaration on 9.5.1988, praying for a decree that he was the owner in possession of the land admeasuring 11 kanals 17 marlas comprising of khasra Nos. 935/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla Road. An alternative plea was also taken that since plaintiff was in possession of the whole suit property to the knowledge of the defendants openly and adversely for more than twelve years, he had acquired ownership rights by way of adverse possession.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement. Harbans Singh (plaintiff) filed replications. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangrur in Suit No. 187/1988 B.T. No. 185 of 18-1-95 (18-1-95) framed following issues:
“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land? OPP
2. Whether there was any family settlement between the parties on 10.3.1988 and memo of family settlement was executed by parties on that day? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff constructed shops, a service station and boundary wall around the disputed property? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of suit land by adverse possession? OPP
5. Whether the property in dispute was purchased out by the income of Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property and construction on the suit la
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
