Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Rattan Chand (Deceased) Through His Lrs. And another - Appellant
Versus
Rishi Kesh And Another - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 233 of 2007
Decided On : 27-08-2019
family settlement - property dispute - Indian Registration Act, 1908, Indian Stamp Act, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Ext. PW4/A, Ext.DW4/A, Ext. D1 - jamabandi Ext.P-3 to P-9 - Ext.DW5/A - family settlement - revenue entries - admission of DW-4 Duni Chand - statements of the witnesses - sale deed Ext.D1
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction claiming joint ownership of the suit land. Defendant contested the suit, claiming exclusive ownership based on a partition deed and sale deed. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit, leading to the instant appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the family settlement did not require registration or stamping, citing relevant case law. It also emphasized the sanctity of family settlements and their binding nature, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: Ownership of the suit land, validity of the family settlement, admissibility of evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of family settlements, the inadmissibility of revenue entries to determine title, and the sufficiency of oral family arrangements. It also highlighted the importance of maintaining peace and harmony in the family through such settlements.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The judgment emphasizes the binding nature of family settlements, affirming that such arrangements are generally upheld by courts to promote peace and harmony within families (!) (!) .
Family settlements do not require registration or stamping to be valid or enforceable, as they are considered to have a special equity and are primarily aimed at resolving disputes and maintaining familial harmony (!) (!) .
Revenue entries are deemed inadmissible for establishing ownership or title, as they are primarily for fiscal purposes and do not determine legal rights over property (!) .
Oral family arrangements, if bona fide and made with the intent to settle disputes or promote harmony, are considered valid and binding, even if not registered or stamped (!) (!) (!) .
The court recognizes that family settlements are often entered into to avoid future disputes and to foster good relations among family members, and such settlements are generally favored by courts (!) (!) .
Technicalities or formal defects, such as lack of registration, should not be used to undermine genuine family arrangements, especially when such arrangements have been acted upon or are intended to promote familial peace (!) (!) .
The law permits the reliance on long-standing dealings, admissions, and oral agreements as evidence of family settlements, reinforcing their enforceability and binding nature (!) (!) .
In the context of property disputes, courts tend to uphold family arrangements, especially when they are entered into bona fide and with the aim of maintaining family harmony, even if legal formalities are not strictly observed (!) (!) .
Revenue entries and official documents are secondary and cannot override the actual family arrangements or oral agreements that are intended to be binding (!) .
Overall, the legal framework favors the enforcement of genuine family settlements to ensure peace among family members, provided they are made honestly and with bona fide intentions (!) (!) (!) .
Would you like a summary tailored for a specific legal purpose or further analysis?
JUDGMENT :
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Plaintiffs are the appellants who having lost before both the Courts below have filed the instant second appeal. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and the "defendants".
2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the allegations that they alongwith defendant and other co-sharers are joint owners in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata No. 529, Khatauni No. 595 bearing Khasra Nos. 5836, 5862, 5863, 5864, Mohal Chamba Town-II, H.B. No. 176, Pargna Panjla, Tehsil and District Chamba and the suit land is still unpartitioned between the parties, but the defendant without prior consent of the plaintiffs and other co-sharers started digging the foundations with a clear motive to raise new construction of his house over the best portion of the land in suit and despite requests not to raise any construction, was insisting for the same. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendant resisted and contested the suit by filing written statement-cum-counter claim, inter alia, raising preliminary objections like estoppel and maintainability etc. On merits, it was contended that the revenue entries regarding Khasra Nos. 5836, 5862, 5863, 5864, 5865 measuring 580-2 sq. yards, showing the land in suit to be still joint between the parties are wrong and illegal and the defendant was exclusive owner in possession thereof vide partition deed dated 13.05.1958, which was effected by Shri Narotam, grand-father of the parties. Shri Narotam had two sons, namely, Harua and Parmanand and one daughter Mugti and in the family partition the property/house comprising Khasra Nos. 5893, 5894 was given to Parmanand and after his death the father of the plaintiffs had disposed of the property comprising Khasra Nos. 5893, 5894 in favour of Narain Dass with the consent of Smt. Mugti and Harua, father of the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs.2800/- received by Shri Parmanand out of which Parmanand had purchased another house adjoining house of the defendant. It was further averred that the construction over this land in suit was already completed by the defendant in the year 1991-92 to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the defendant neither dismantled the old structure nor raised any structure over the same. It was further contended that the notice issued to the defendant was illegal and suit of the plaintiffs was not maintainable as no cause of action arose to them and prayed that the counter claim of the defendant be decreed while the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. In the replication, the plaintiffs controverted the assertions made in the written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments of the plaint. Likewise the defendant in replication filed to the written statement to the written statement-cum-counter claim denied the assertions made in the said written statement and re-affirmed and reiterated the averments made in his written statement-cum-counter claim.
5. From the pleadings of the parties the learned Trial Court on 15.03.1999 framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the suit property is jointly owned and possessed by the parties as alleged? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether the revenue entries are wrong and illegal as alleged? OPD
6. Whether the defendants have a cause of action for the counter claim? OPD
7. Relief.
6. After recording evidence and evaluating the same, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs constraining them to file an appeal before the learned first Appellate Court, which too, vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2007 dismissed the appeal so filed. It is against both these judgments and decrees that the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal.
7. During the pendency of the appeal, plain
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
