IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta
Regular Second Appeal No.2115 of 1987 (O&M)
Daya Kishan Vasisth & Anr.
v.
Kanwar Lal @ Kamal & Ors.
{Decided on 08/04/2015}
(A) Registration Act, 1908, S.17--Compulsory Registration--Family Settlement--Where the document is containing terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document, it requires registration whereas a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been effected, does not require registration, as in such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any right in immoveable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(1)(b) of Registration Act. (Para 20)
(B) Registration Act, 1908, S.17--Compulsory Registration--Family Settlement--Document of family settlement if recites the manner in which the parties had already agreed by mutual consent to divide the property owned--It would not required to be compulsorily registered. (Para 21)
(C) Registration Act, 1908, S.17--Family Settlement--The family settlement had already taken place during life time of original owner and with his consent, as such, whether the property owned by him was ancestral or self-acquired property, loses its significance. (Para 22)
Mr. Surinder Gupta, J.: - This judgment will dispose of two appeals i.e. Regular Second Appeal no.2115 of 1987 and Regular Second Appeal no.4881 of 1999 as both relate to the similar matter i.e. inheritance of estate of Daya Kishan.
RSA-2115-1987
2. Respondent no.1-plaintiff Kanwar Lal filed suit (Civil Suit no.1166 of 1985) claiming relief of declaration as follows:-
“It is prayed that a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the properties detailed in para no.2(c) of this plaint and that the decree in suit no.1107 decided on 06.12.1985 by the court of Shri Rajinder Parshad, Sub Judge 1st Class, Palwal does not effect the ownership rights of the plaintiff in the properties detailed in para no.2(c) of this plaint and the same is liable to be set aside, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants.”
3. The case of respondent no.1-plaintiff, in brief, was that Daya Kishan, appellant-defendant no.1 father of respondent no.1-plaintiff and defendants no.2 and 3 Bhim Singh and Lachhi Ram owned the following properties situated in village Baghola, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad which was joint Hindu family coparcenary property:-
(A) Khewat Thatoni 126/204 Killa nos. 13//6/1, 16(14)//7/2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20/3, 27//8, 9/1, 12, 13, 53//1/2, 81//17/2, 18/2, 24/1, 87//6/1, 7, 13/2, 14, 88//2/2, 3/3, 8/2, 9, 12, 13/1 measuring 141 kanals 16 marlas;
(B) Two Gaits bearing Khewat Khatoni 126/204 of Khasra nos. 296(1K-5M), 300(1K-9M), measuring 2 kanals 14 marlas; and a gait situated within the abadi adjacent to the house of Teji son of Devi Sahai with an area of 244 sq. yards;
(C) A house double storied shown with the letters A B C D in the map attached with the plaint qua its ground floor and with the letters E F G H qua its first floor and bounded as below situated within the abadi of village Baghola, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad.
East : Plot/Nohra of Jhangiri Pandit;
West : Thoroughfare;
North : House of Dhanmat;
South : House of Jhangiri Pandit.
4. Under the family settlement dated 24.05.1984, the properties were partitioned as follows:-
“a) Properties allotted to Bhim Singh, defendant no.2 are as follows:-
(i) Agricultural land out of the lands detailed in para no.1(A) of this plaint bearing Khewat Khatoni 126/204 Killa nos. 13//6/1, 16(14)//7/2, 8, 9, 10, 53//1/2, 87//6/1, 7, 13/2, 88//12 to the extent of 1/2 share. These lands are known as Kodhrawal near the Revenue estate of village Pirthla on G.T. Road and a part of it is known as Khait Hassanpur, and a part of it known as Chhonkarwal, Lodhawale par and a part of it known as Daher-wali, total measuring 47 kanals 9 marlas.
(ii) Gair Mumkin Gait bearing its khasra no.300 measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas of Khewat Khatoni 126/204 known as Gait detailed in para no.1(B) of this plaint.
(iii) A room and the half portion of Dukaria shown with the letters P D J K on the ground floor and the portion including the Kitchen on the first floor shown with letters L H N O which includes a Duchhatti as well out of the house detailed in para no.1(C) of this plaint.
b) Properties allotted to defendant no.3 Shri Lachhi Ram are as follows:-
(i) Agricultural land Khewat Khatoni 126/204 Killa nos. 27//8, 9/1, 12, 13, 88//9, 3/3, 2/2, 8/2 and 88//13/1, 12 to the extent of 1/2, measuring 46 kanals 6 marlas and these lands are known in the village as a part of it Sattiwale and a part of its as Lodhawale.
(ii) A Gait alias plot bearing its Khasra no.296 measuring 1 kanals 5 marlas retaining its Khewat Khatoni 126/204 fully detailed in para no.1(B) of this plaint.
(iii) A room shown with the letters Q R S T on the ground floor and a Chaubara on the first floor shown with the letters 1, R-1, S-1, T-1 on the first floor out of the house detailed in para no.1(C) of this plaint.
c) Properties allotted to the plaintiff are as follows:-
(i) Agricultural land Khewat Khatoni 126/204 Killa nos. 14(16)//11, 12, 13, 20/3(20/1)
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.