The central legal point established in the judgment is that property received by class I heirs under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, ceases to be coparcenary property, and a civil court decree acknowledging a prior family settlement is not an instrument of transfer of title and does not require registration.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The defendant-appellant has filed the present Regular Second Appeal against concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below while decreeing suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 (herein) -Mange Ram for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendants no.2 to 5 are members of a joint Hindu Family and judgment and decree suffered by defendant no.2 in civil suit no. 568 of 1995 decided on 19.7.1995 in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and performa defendants. It has been contended that coparcenary property cannot be alienated by way of a judgment and decree passed against defendant no.2 and in favour of defendant no.1.

2. In the considered view of this Court, following questions of law arise for determination:-

(i) Whether property received by way of natural succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by a member of the family continues to be a coparcenary property.

(ii) Whether a civil court decree acknowledging a prior family settlement is required to be registered.

(iii) Whether a document which acknowledges a prior family settlement is a deed of relinquishment and therefore requires compulsory registration.

3. Facts of the case are required to be noticed in detail. It would be appropriate to draw a pedigree table to understand inter se relationship between the parties:-

4. Plaintiff-respondent no.1-Mange Ram is son of Dhirudefendant no.2 whereas Kanha is defendant no. 1. Dhiru and Kanha are cousins because their grandfather was common and father of both the parties were brothers.

5. Defendants no. 3, 4 and 5 are children of Dhiru whereas defendant no.6 is wife of Dhiru.

6. Family of Dhiru was owner of agriculture land in two different villages i.e Village Badal Tehsil Charkhi Dadri and village Damkora , Tehsil Loharu. It is the case of the defendants that Dhiru that he alongwith his family members had shifted to village Damkora almost 100 years before filing of the suit. It has also come on record that Shri Dhiru transferred agricultural land and other property situated in village Badal in favour of his four sons namely Mange Ram, Udey Singh, Raj Karan and Rajesh. The aforesaid family settlement was recognized and acknowledged through a civil court decree passed on 2.4.1990. The copy of the order passed on 2.4.1990 is extracted as under:-

“Since the parties to the suit are not at issue on any question of facts and law and, therefore, keeping in view the admission made by the defendant in his written statement as also in his statement recorded in the court, I decree the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land in equal shares as prayed for. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned.”

7. Shri Kanha defendant no.1-appellant herein filed a civil suit no. 568 dated 17.7.1995 claiming land measuring 36 kanals 14 marlas on the basis of a family settlement and partition/adjustment. In this suit, Dhiru was defendant no.1. Dhiru filed a written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. Dhiru appeared in evidence and suffered a statement that he admit the claim of the plaintiff – Kanha in the aforesaid suit. Pursuant thereto, learned Court came to a finding that the parties were not at issue and hence, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.1995.

8. Plaintiffs-Mange Ram, Udey Singh, Raj Karan and Rajesh executed a document which is in the form of a family settlement wherein it was acknowledged that Mange Ram would have no right, title or interest in the land