Family settlements may not require registration if agreed upon previously, as affirmed by established legal principles.

Headnote:(A) Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17 - Need for registration of family settlements - Second appeal against dismissal of suit for possession - The court upheld the Appellate Court's finding that the Settlement Deed dated 15th June, 1997 was valid and had been acted upon, rejecting claims of coercion and non-registration. (Paras 11, 20, 26)

(B) Family Settlements - The principles governing family settlements include voluntary execution without coercion, and they may be oral, negating the need for registration if the terms were agreed upon prior. The court ruled that the deed did not require registration as per established legal precedents. (Paras 22, 24, 28)

Facts of the case:
The appellant sought possession of property under a Settlement Deed executed with his brothers, alleging non-compliance. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, upholding the Settlement’s validity against claims of duress.

Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings by the Trial and Appellate Courts upheld that the family settlement was valid, acted upon, and no substantial questions of law arose for appeal.

Issues: Whether the Settlement Deed was valid; whether it required registration; whether the deed was executed under coercion.

Ratio Decidendi: The Deed was valid and acted upon, and prior understanding negated the need for registration; the Court upheld the findings of both lower courts regarding the credibility of the parties and evidence presented.

Result: The second appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present second appeal arises out of the judgment dated 2nd November, 2018 passed by the Ld. ADJ-05, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter "Appellate Court") in RCA NO.8742/16 titled Murari Lal v. Sant Ram & Ors. By the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant herein (hereinafter "Plaintiff") against the judgment and decree dated 5th June, 2003 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Saket Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No.41/99 titled Sh. Murari Lal v. Sh. Sant Ram. By the said judgment of the Trial Court, the suit for possession filed by the Appellant- Sh. Murari Lal, against his brothers Sh. Sant Ram and Sh. Bijender, in respect of property bearing no. D-I/183, 1st Floor, Madangir, New Delhi (hereinafter as `suit property') was dismissed by the Trial Court.

3. The background of the case is that the three parties i.e., the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 are real brothers. The plaint was filed on the basis of the fact that a Settlement Deed had been executed between the parties on 15th June, 1997, as per which certain agreements were arrived at between the parties. The case of the Plaintiff is that the said Settlement Deed was not given effect to by the Defendants. As per the said Settlement Deed, the suit property was to vest with the Defendant No.1, subject to Defendant No.1 delivering 4 tolas of gold to the Plaintiff. However, since the said reciprocal promise was not honoured by the Defendant No.1, the property was to be delivered back to the Plaintiff as the original ownership of the said property vested with the Plaintiff. The Settlement Deed dated 15th June, 1997, which is in Hindi, is set out below:

eSa eqjkjhyky iq=k Jh brokjh yky fuoklh xkao tksgjk Fkkuk Nk;lh ftyk Qjhnkckn gfj;k.kk dk fuoklh gwaA eSaus o esjs HkkbZ Jh larjke iq=k brokjhyky xkao mijkDr gj nksuksa Hkkb;ksa dk tehu tk;nkn dk caVokjk iapksa esa bl izdkj gqvk gS fd eSaus viuk lsaV*y ekdsZV MhvkbZ&183] enuxhj] ubZ fnYyh dk uhps ls Eij rd dk lkjk edku o 'khryk ekfdZV okyk [kks[kk tks igys ls gh larjke ds ikl FkkA vc ;g gj nksuksa mijksDr edku o [kks[kk vkt ds caVokjs esa eSaus vius HkkbZ larjke dks ns fn, gSa vkSj ckdh edku ua- lhvkbZ&717&718 o thvkbZ&25] 48 gj pkjksa IykV o vkxs okyk [kks[kk eqjkjhyky ds ikl gh jgsaxsa ftuesa ls thvkbZ&25 ;k thvkbZ&48 esa ls dksbZ lk ,d edku eqjkjhyky vius HkkbZ fctsanj flag dks nsuk gSA tks Hkh eqjkjhyky ds ikl fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dtkZ gSA tks Hkh gS og lc eqjkjhyky dks gh vnk djuk gSA larjke dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dtkZ ugha nsuk gSA larjke dks edku ua- thvkbZ&25 tks fd larjke ds uke ij gSA mldh ikoj vkWQ vVkuhZ eqjkjhyky ds uke djokuh gSA vkSj eqjkjhyky us ;g edku fctsanj flag dks nsuk gSA blfy, thvkbZ&25 dh ikoj vkWQ vVkuhZ fctsanj flag ds uke djokuh gSA edku ua- lsaV*y ekfdZV MhvkbZ&183 eqjkjhyky th vius cMs HkkbZ ds uke ikWoj vkWQ vVkuhZ djokuh gSA og larjke vius HkkbZ eqjkjhyky dks pkj rksys lksuk nsaxsA vkSj tks xkao esa Jh brokjh yky th ds uke ij tks tehu gS og mls budk nksus Hkkb;ksa dk dksbZ lEcU/k vkSj ugh dksbZ ysuk nsuk gSA vkSj tks xkao dh tehu gS firkth ds uke gS mlds pkj NksVs HkkbZ gdnkj gksaxsA tkjs dsoy tksr dh gSA vkt ls igys nksuks Hkkb;ksa dk fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ ysu nsu gksxk oks vius vki ftEesnkj gksaxsA ;g lHkh ckrsa ekStwn vkneh vkSj fj'rsnkjksa ds lkeus gqbZ gSaA ;g lHkh dke lkr fnu ds vUnj gksaxsA

gLrk- larjke

%vaxzsth esa%

gLrk-@& eqjkjhyky

%fgUnh esa%

xokgksa ds gLrk{kj

1- ch ,l pkS/kjh

2- thr jke fuoklh thou uxj] Qjhnkckn

gLrk-@& %viBfu;% fnukad 15-06-97

3- vaxqBs dk fu'kku %viBuh;%

4- vaxqBs dk fu'kku %viBuh;%] xkao & Qjhnkckn

5- gLrk-@& %viBuh;%] bolr iky flag] e/kqiqjk

iapks ds uke %viBuh;%