MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Harleen Anand – Appellant
Versus
Bhai Sardar Singh Deceased Through Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (Oral):
CM(M) 435/2022 and CM APPL. 37291/2023
CM(M) 481/2023 and CM APPL. 37277/2023
1. The petition i.e., CM(M) 435/2022 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by ADJ-09, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (`Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 5820/2018, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the Petitioner's application, filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), seeking impleadment in the said civil suit.
1.1. The petition i.e., CM(M) 481/2023 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by Trial Court in the aforesaid Civil Suit No. 5820/2018, whereby the Trial Court has deleted all the defendants except legal heirs (`LRs') of Late Bhai Balbir Singh.
2. The Applications bearing CM. APPL. No. 37291/2023 (in CM(M) 435/2022) and CM APPL. 37277/2023 (in CM(M) 481/2023) have been filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 read with Order XXIII Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), for taking on record the Family Settlement Agreement dated 17.07.2023 (`Settlement Agreeme
Family settlements may not require registration if agreed upon previously, as affirmed by established legal principles.
Oral family settlements are valid and require no registration if acknowledged by all parties, and prior admissions bind parties in subsequent related suits.
Point of law : Family property - Settlement - Admission - Statement made in the earlier plaint constitutes an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thus, the Plaintiffs would be bound by the said adm....
A family settlement must be voluntary, with all parties having antecedent claims, and if based on fraud, coercion, or lacking registration, is inadmissible, impacting ownership rights claimed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to protect the rights of the revision petitioner to challenge the validity of the settlement deed in the main appeal, while confirming the....
The court established that property was self-acquired, not ancestral, and rejected claims of adverse possession and family settlement due to lack of evidence.
The settlement agreement and decree of divorce based on the settlement are valid and enforceable, unless there is evidence of fraud or coercion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.