The family settlement, though unregistered, operated as estoppel against the signatories and partitioned the suit properties among the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff was estopped from disputing the family settlement and seeking partition of the properties.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J.

RFA 742/2019 and CM APPL. 36857/2019 (stay)

The lis

1. Ami Chand and his wife Barpai Devi had four sons, Mahinder Singh, Hukam Singh, Attar Singh and Chattar Singh. Ami Chand died on 30th April 1988 and Barpai Devi died later; however, her date of death is not forthcoming on the record. With the death of Barpai Devi, their sole surviving legal heirs were Mahinder Singh, Hukam Singh, Attar Singh and Chattar Singh. Hukam Singh had three sons and one daughter, namely, Dev Raj, Hem Raj, Yogesh and Aarti. Hukam Singh apparently went missing, as per the impugned judgment, sometime in 1996.

2. Mahinder Singh instituted CS 06/2012 against Hukam Singh, Attar Singh, Chattar Singh and Dev Raj, claiming partition of properties Nos. 169 and 185, Village Haiderpur, Delhi - 110042 ("the suit properties"), which admittedly were initially owned by Ami Chand. The suit was subsequently transferred to this Court and re- numbered as CS (OS) 1170 of 2014, whereafter it was re-transferred back to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") and re-numbered as CS 578024/2016.

3. By judgment dated 27th February 2019, the learned ADJ has held the plaintiff Mahinder Singh to be entitled to a decree of partition of the suit properties and, in which he has been found entitled to 1/4th share. A preliminary decree of partition has accordingly been passed by the learned ADJ.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been instituted before this Court, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) by Attar Singh, Defendant 2 in the suit.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be designated, in this judgement, by their respective status before the learned ADJ or by their names.

Rival Stands before the learned ADJ

6. The Plaint

6.1. Mahinder Singh, as the plaintiff in the plaint, pleaded that

(i) Ami Chand was the owner of the suit properties,

(ii) Ami Chand died on 30th April 1988 left behind Barpai Devi, the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs,

(iii) Barpai Devi died subsequently, leaving behind the plaintiff and Defendants 1 to 3 as her legal heirs,

(iv) the plaintiff was, therefore, claiming 1/4th share in the suit properties, as per the law of inheritance,

(v) the suit properties were built up and rented out,

(vi) Property No. 185 was orally given by Ami Chand to the plaintiff and Defendant 2 (the appellant herein),

(vii) the plaintiff and Defendant 2 each built structures of two storeys on their respective parts of Property No. 185, which were let out,

(ix) Defendant 2 collected rent from the tenants occupying his share of Property No. 185,

(x) the plaintiff, being a resident of Palam, had authorised Defendant 3 Chattar Singh to collect rent from the tenants occupying the plaintiff's share of Property No. 185 and to transmit the rent so collected to the plaintiff,

(xi) Defendant 3 complied with the said request till sometime in 2010, whereafter Defendant 3 stopped forwarding the rent collected from the plaintiff's tenants to the plaintiff and

(xii) Property No. 169 was occupied by Defendant 4 Dev Raj except for two rooms, of which Defendant 3 had the key.

6.2. The plaint further avers that, on 30th December 2011, the plaintiff approached the defendants to partition the suit properties by metes and bounds, but the defendants refused, whereupon the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against them.

7. The Written Statement

7.1. Defendants 2 to 4 filed a common written statement by way of response to the suit. They contended that, on 10th July 1997, the suit properties stood partitioned between the parties by an oral family settlement, which was reduced to writing. As per the said family settlement, Property No. 169 was divided between Defendant 1 Hukam Singh and Defendant 3 Chattar Singh and Property no. 185 was divided between the plaintiff Mahinder Singh and Defendant 2 Attar Singh. As such, the plaintiff's assertion that the suit properties were open for partiti