SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.
Naresh Chouhan S/o Late Adalat Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
Ganesh Chouhan S/o Late Adalat Chouhan – Respondent
FA Nos. 403, 483 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : H.B. Agrawal, Sandhya Rao, Ravindra Sharma, Bhanwar Lal Parakh, Sandeep Patel,
For the Respondent: Alok Bakshi

Unregistered family arrangements can be enforceable if acted upon by the parties, despite mandatory registration requirements for certain documents.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(1)(b) - Family arrangement - Compliance with Section 17 is mandatory for registration of documents of transfer; however, unregistered family arrangements can be enforceable between parties provided they have acted upon it. (Para 36)

(B) Consent deed - Document titled as a consent deed executed by parties who are real brothers is admissible as it reflects a family settlement rather than a partition. (Para 25)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff claims entitlement to 1/4 share of rent from properties based on consent deed (Ex.P-1) executed by all siblings regarding shared rights. Plaintiff also seeks payment of Rs.1,04,000/- for arrears of rent. (Para 5)

Findings of Court:
The learned trial court upheld the validity of the consent deed as a family arrangement despite it being unregistered, and found the evidence insufficient to support the plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent. (Paras 26 and 37)

Issues: Whether the consent deed (Ex.P-1) is admissible and binding as a family settlement despite not being registered, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claimed arrears of rent. (Paras 36 and 37)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that while the Registration Act mandates registration for certain documents, unregistered family arrangements are valid if acted upon. The plaintiffs’ claim for arrears lacked sufficient evidence. (Paras 36, 37)

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. claims over shared property and rent (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. details of consent deed and property lease (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding the consent deed's admissibility (Para 8 , 9)
4. analysis of the consent deed's nature and effects (Para 11 , 19 , 20)
5. family settlements do not require registration to be enforceable (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
6. dismissal of appeals and order to bear costs (Para 37 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.

1. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 28.07.2017 passed in Civil Suit No. 6757-A/2013, by learned Fourth Additional District Judge, Durg, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. First Appeal No.403 of 2017 is filed by defendant No.1 to 3 challenging the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, whereby learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff is entitled for rent to the extent of 1/4 share of plot No.3 and 4, situated at Village Supela, Nehru Road and rent of seven shops situated on Plot No.A-6 situated at Akashganga Industrial Area.

4. First Appeal No. 483/2017 is filed by plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree on the ground of dismissing the claim of plaintiff for receipt of arrears of rent of Rs.1,04,000/-.

5. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking relief of declaration that defendants No.1 to 3 are bound to give share of 1/4 of rent received from suit property in terms of consent letter executed during lifetime of their father and further seek declaration that plaintiff is entitled to receive 1/4 share from defendants No.1 to 3 and from available tenants. In the suit plaintiff has further claimed relief of injunction against defendants No.1 to 3 restraining to cause any hindrance in receipt of 1/4 share of monthly rent and a direction to defendants No.4 to 8 to pay 1/4 share of agreed rent to plaintiff. It is further prayed for sum of Rs.1,04,000/- towards 1/4 share of rent from defendants and the interest thereon. The suit is filed based on the documents Ex.P-1, which is a consent deed stated to be signed by the plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 to 3. In plaint it is further pleaded that the land bearing Plot No. 3, measuring 2200 sq.ft. and Plot No.4 measuring 2200 sq.ft. is allotted in the name of defendant No.2 and 1 situated at village Supela, Nehru Road, Supela, Bhilai out of which in plot No.3 one shop is situated which was given on rent to defendant No.6 -Pramod Kumar Jain. The shop situated in Plot No.4 was given on rent to defendant No.4 and in one of the shop, defendant No.5 is in possession. It is also pleaded that one shop situated at plot A-6, situated at Akash Ganga Commercial Area, Supela Bhilai, defendant No.7 is in possession as tenant and one shop is given on rent to Sunil Jain. The said plots were taken on lease by father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 from his own income and has also got constructed the shops. Plot No. 3 of Nehru Road, Supela Bhilai is allotted in the name of defendant No.2 and Plot No.4 of Nehru Road, Supela Bhilai was allotted in name of defendant No.1. Plot A-6 was allotted in name of defendant No.3. Plot No.4 Block-24 Nehru Road Supela Market was alloted in the name of plaintiff but the said plot was lying vacant neither any construction was raised on it nor it was given on lease/rent and is still in possession of plaintiff. It was also pleaded that to avoid any dispute in earnings from joint family property as mentioned above, one consent deed was executed on 08.08.2002, which was signed by plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3. It is also pleaded in the said document (Ex.P-1) that there is mention that all four brothers will have equal rights and share in the said property. Deceased father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top