Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
ANJULI PALO, J.
Jawahar Agrawal and Ors - Appellants
Versus
Manish Agrawal and Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 1363/2019
Decided On : 12-03-2021
Family Settlement - Property Dispute - [FAMILY SETTLEMENT] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Hindu Undivided Family Act, 1956, Section 6] - The court discussed the Family Settlement Deed (Exhibit P-18) and its admissibility, and found that it did not transfer any property but was executed for remembrance and clarity of use and enjoyment of the properties by the plaintiffs. The court referred to Halsbury's Laws of England and the case of Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others to establish the essentials of a family settlement and the principles governing its existence. It emphasized that a family settlement does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property. The court concluded that the lower Appellate Court's findings regarding the execution of the Family Settlement and the right of possession of the respondents over the suit property were based on meticulous appreciation of evidence and not perverse or contrary to the material on record.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for a house and plot, claiming that the defendants, who were part of the Hindu Undivided Family, had left the property and were trying to sell it. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the properties were purchased and constructed by the defendant No. 1 with his own income.
Finding of the Court:
The lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs are in legal occupation of the disputed properties and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs without proper course of law. The court found that the Family Settlement Deed did not transfer any property and that the plaintiffs had been in possession and using the properties continuously since 1995-96.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the ownership and possession of the disputed properties, the admissibility and validity of the Family Settlement Deed, and the valuation of the suit properties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the essentials of a family settlement and the principles governing its existence, highlighting that it does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property. It also reiterated that the court cannot interfere with findings of fact unless they are perverse or contrary to the material on record.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.
ORDER :
Anjuli Palo, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants/defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2019 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Betul in C.A. No. 116/2017 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2017 passed by learned 1st C.J.-I, Betul in C.S. No. 500004-A/2016 whereby the lower Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) and dismissed the cross objection preferred by the appellants 1 and 2 (defendants 1 and 2). The lower Appellate Court held that that the plaintiffs/respondents are in legal possession of the plot admeasuring 2400 square feet and the house constructed in first floor of the aforesaid plot as well as a plot on east side adjacent to the aforesaid plot admeasuring 3200 square feet situated on the east of the aforesaid plot. The lower Appellate Court also granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from dispossessing the plaintiffs/respondents from the aforesaid property without proper course of law.
2. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff No. 1 is husband of the plaintiff No. 2. The defendants 1 and 2 are father and mother of the plaintiff No. 1. Defendants 3 and 4 are married sisters of the plaintiff No. 1.
3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction for the house constructed on the plot situated at Nazul Sheet No. 19, Plot No. 1/18 layout Plot No. 1/62 admeasuring 2400 and plot admeasuring 3200 square feet situated at Layout Plot No. 1/87 restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering with their possession over the suit property and from transferring the same.
4. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants 1 and 2 with them were residing jointly with them at Betul as Hindu Undivided Family in the suit house. However six months prior to filing of the suit on 13.10.2015, the defendants 1 and 2 had left Betul to reside with defendant No. 3 Manisha and since then they are residing with her. The appellant No. 1/defendant No. 1 is Karta of HUF. He purchased a plot admeasuring 2400 square feet situated at Nazul Sheet No. 19, plot number 1/18 layout number 1/62 from Smt. Malti. A house was constructed on the ground floor on 1200 square feet by the defendant No. 1. Thereafter, the plaintiff with the consent of his father, got construction of first floor on the above construction from his own income. The plaintiff No. 1 with the consent of his father also got construction of a Bedding Room, X-ray operating room, etc. on 800 sq. ft. in the said plot on the ground floor out of his own income. The defendant No. 2 from the income of the joint family also purchased another plot admeasuring 3200 sq. ft. situated at Nazul Sheet No. 19, plot number 1/18, layout number 1/87 in the name of defendant No. 2 on 22.01.1996. The said plot is also in possession of the plaintiffs. The taxes of the suit properties are being paid by the respondents.
5. It is averred that on 12.06.2015, the defendant No. 1 executed a Family Settlement deed (Exhibit P-18) before the witnesses by which the suit properties have been given to the plaintiff No. 1 and simultaneously the original documents were also handedover to the plaintiff No. 1/respondent No. 1. Thereafter on 13.10.2015 the defendants 1 and 2/appellants 1 and 2 shifted to Nagpur to reside with their daughter-defendant No. 3. Since, then, the defendants 1 and 2 are residing at Nagpur with the defendant No. 3. The defendant No. 1 sold certain other properties in January, 2016. The plaintiff No. 1 received information that the defendant No. 1 is trying to sell the suit property which is in possession of the plaintiffs, hence, plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.
6. The defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement. A preliminary objection was taken by them that the defendant No. 1 purchased the plot in question in the year 1990 fro
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and validity of a Family Settlement Deed, emphasizing that it does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish a....
An unregistered document that creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property for the first time requires mandatory registration. If such a document is the sole basis of a suit and lacks registr....
Oral family settlements are valid and require no registration if acknowledged by all parties, and prior admissions bind parties in subsequent related suits.
Family settlements may not require registration if agreed upon previously, as affirmed by established legal principles.
Existence of an unregistered family arrangement deed does not confer partition rights absent proper registration and stamp duty where required by law.
Point of law : Family property - Settlement - Admission - Statement made in the earlier plaint constitutes an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thus, the Plaintiffs would be bound by the said adm....
Family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division.
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
