Family settlements may not require registration if they do not create or confer any rights in property, maintaining the principle that suits should disclose a cause of action as per Order 7 Rule 11.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM No. 28120/2021(for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CM(M) 556/2021 and CM No.28119/2021 (for interim relief)

3. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 28th July, 2020 passed by the learned District Judge-03, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS/210822/2016 whereby the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE (CPC), 1908 has been dismissed.

4. The case pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit was that there was a family settlement dated 28th January, 2012 that was executed between the parties to deal with the various properties as mentioned therein and that the petitioners/defendants did not abide by the terms of the said family settlement, which resulted in the respondent/plaintiff filing the suit from which the present petition arises. The following reliefs were sought in suit, (i) Declaration of ownership rights in terms of the aforesaid family settlement; (ii). declaration that the gift deeds dated 9th October, 2009 and 29th October, 2009 executed by the petitioner in favour of petitioners No. 2 and 3 are null and void; and (iii) Injunction against petitioners from creating third party interest in respect of the suit property. The said suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing the written statement claiming that the properties in question were self-acquired properties of the petitioner No.1 and accordingly, the gift deeds executed in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 are valid.

5. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the petitioners claiming that the above said suit was not maintainable, by raising the following three grounds:

(i) The family settlement dated 28th January, 2012 was not registered and therefore, no rights are created under the same. Accordingly, the suit which is entirely based on the said family settlement is not maintainable.

(ii) The above said suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC as the plaintiff No. 1 had filed a previous suit of injunction against the petitioners/defendants and the reliefs claimed in the present suit could have been claimed in the said earlier suit.

(iii) That the above said suit was barred under Section 34 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963, as the respondent/plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and the claim of possession has not been made in the above said suit.

6. The above three contentions raised by the petitioners/defendants were rejected by the impugned order dated 28th July, 2020.

7. The same grounds as raised before the Trial Court in support of the Order 7 Rule 11 application, have been made before this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the Trial Court has misapplied the provisions of law to the facts of the present case and hence, the order of the Trial Court is erroneous and should be set aside. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the terms of the family settlement to contend that the said document indeed creates rights and interest in the property and therefore, is required to be compulsorily registered. Since the suit is based on this unregistered document, the suit was not maintainable. It is further contended that the present suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE as the reliefs sought in the said suit should have been claimed in the earlier injunction suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff No. 1 against the petitioners.

8. It is contended that earlier the suit