Family settlements are binding and enforceable even if not registered; parties must challenge prior arrangements within limitation periods to maintain claims.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J.

1. This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.07.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sakti District Janjgir Champa in Civil Appeal No.4-A/2008 whereby the First Appeal filed by plaintiffs No.2 to 4 have been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Link Court, Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa in Civil Suit No.20-A/2007 has been affirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties shown in Civil Suit are being taken in the present Second Appeal.

3. On 12.11.2021 the appeal was admitted for hearing by the court on the following substantial questions of law :

“1. Whether the courts below has recorded a perverse finding by treating Ex.D/2 as deed of partition dated 07.06.1982 in place of deed of exchange?

2. Whether the court below was justified in recording a finding that suit is barred by limitation?”

4. The plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the trial court for declaration of title over their 1/4th share and separate possession of the suit property total 2.25 Acre of land situated at village Kashigarh, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa and 1.06 Acre of land situated at village Aamgaon, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa, which are shown in Paragraph 2(a) and 2(b) of the plaint. They pleaded before the trial court that the suit lands are the ancestral property of parties which were recorded in the name of Dharmu. After death of Dharmu, the suit lands were recorded in the name of defendants No.1 to 3 and Ghasiram. The defendants No.1 & 2 illegally deleted the name of Ghasiram from the revenue records of suit land. When Ghasiram came to know that his name has been deleted from revenue records, he filed an appeal before the SDO(Revenue), Sakti, which was dismissed. The defendants No.1&2 have mutually partitioned the suit land and denied share to the plaintiffs whereas there was no partition between the members of joint family. The alleged partition dated 07.06.1982 is an unregistered deed and the same is forged and fabricated. The land of village Mauhadih, Khasra No.39 Area 1.50 Acre and Khasra No.45 area 2.15 Acre was purchased by Mayamati on 25.06.1976 through registered sale deed which was not given in partition and the same is the self acquired property of the plaintiffs No.2&3 and it was wrongly included in the partition of the property. Therefore, they filed the suit before the trial court.

5. The defendants No.1 to 3 contested the claim of plaintiffs; filed their written statement; denied the plaint averment and pleaded that the land of village Kashigarh and Aamgaon have been mutated in the names of defendants and the name of Dharmu was legally deleted from the revenue records. In the lands of village Kashigarh and Aamgaon there is no share of plaintiffs. Sonau Ram and Bhaiya Ram were the title and possession holder of the lands of village Kashigarh and Aamgaon. On 07.06.1982 there was a partition between the members of the family with respect to lands of village Kashigarh, Aamgaon and Mauhadih. As per their mutual partition, the lands of village Kashigarh and Aamgaon were obtained by defendants No.1&2 and the lands of village Mauhadih was given to the plaintiffs in their share and the plaintiff No.1 has executed a memorandum on 07.06.1982 and thereafter plaintiffs settled at village Mauhadi