2026 Supreme(Del) 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishnaj, J.
Sh. Deepak Kaushik, S/o Late Sh. Ramphal Kaushik -Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kaushik, S/o Late Sh. Ramphal Kaushik - Respondents
RFA 1050 of 2025, CM APPL. 72251 of 2025
Decided On : 10-06-2026

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 registration, it is inadmissible in evidence, resulting in a failure to disclose a valid cause of action.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Rejection of plaint - Absence of cause of action - Crucial document underlying claim was an unregistered family arrangement - Whether an unregistered document that creates, declares, or extinguishes rights in immovable property requires compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 - If a document is the basis of the right asserted and is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence under Section 49, rendering the plaint liable for rejection. (Paras 38, 52, 61, 88)

(B) Family Settlement - Principles of validity - Determining if a settlement records a past oral understanding or creates new rights in praesenti - If document creates or extinguishes rights for the first time, it must be registered to be enforceable - The doctrine of estoppel requires that parties must have demonstrably acted upon the arrangement to preclude them from challenging its validity, even if unregistered. (Paras 57, 59, 62, 73, 77, 87)

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed a suit seeking a declaration and permanent injunction, relying on an unregistered family arrangement purportedly settling immovable properties between family members. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, reasoning that the document required mandatory registration as it created rights in the property rather than merely recording past transactions, and because the property in question was self-acquired by a family member who subsequently executed a registered gift deed.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the family arrangement did not record a pre-existing state of affairs but created new rights for the first time; therefore, it fell under the ambit of compulsory registration. Furthermore, the absence of evidence showing that the parties had acted upon the terms of the settlement rendered the document inadmissible and insufficient to establish a cause of action against the registered gift deed.

Issues: The primary issues were whether an unregistered family settlement document required compulsory registration to be legally effective and whether the plaint, based solely on such a document, disclosed a valid cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: A written instrument that creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property without prior oral partition is compulsorily registrable. An unregistered document, which is neither a record of a completed transaction nor acted upon by the parties, is inadmissible as evidence, and thus, a plaint rooted exclusively in such a document lacks a cause of action.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appellate procedure regarding rejection of plaint. (Para 1 , 2)
2. basis of family claims and property ownership disputes. (Para 3 , 17)
3. defendants' response regarding ownership and maintainability of the suit. (Para 18 , 26)
4. applicability of order vii rule 11 regarding non-registration and benami act. (Para 27 , 31)
5. plaintiff's contention on validity and necessity of registration for family arrangements. (Para 32 , 36)
6. trial court's initial finding on the necessity of registration. (Para 37 , 39)
7. grounds for appeal challenging the application of registration bar. (Para 40 , 47)
8. redefining the core issues: registration requirement and benami status. (Para 48 , 52)
9. legal standard for family settlements, registration requirements, and estoppel. (Para 53 , 77)
10. determination that the specific 2009 settlement instrument required registration. (Para 78 , 81)
11. admissibility of unregistered family settlements for collateral purposes based on subsequent conduct. (Para 82 , 87)
12. final confirmation of trial court's decision to reject plaint. (Para 88 , 90)
13. dismissal of the regular first appeal. (Para 91)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Regular First Appeal under Section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant, Sh. Deepak Kaushik, against Judgment dated 29.10.2025, whereby the Suit filed by the Plaintiff seeking Declaration and Permanent Injunction, has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, by the learned District Judge.

2. The Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit bearing No. CS DJ 679/2018, seeking Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

3. The brief facts, as narrated in the Plaint, are that the Plaintiff and the Respondents are the Legal Heirs of late Ramphal Kaushik, who had expired intestate on 09.10.2003 and was survived by his wife Chandrawati, four sons namely, Satbir Kaushik, Vinod Kaushik, Naresh Kaushik and Deepak Kaushik and two daughters namely, Santosh Sharma and Sangeeta Dixit.

4. One son, Satbir Kaushik died and was survived by his wife Krishna, one son, Sudershan Kaushik and two daughters, Seema and Sonia. All the Legal Heirs of late Satbir Kaushik authorised Sudershan Kaushik, his son, to sign the Family Arrangement, as agreed on behalf of all the family members.

5. The Plaintiff claimed that he and his family members, as per the wishes of late Ramphal Kaushik, in the year 2009 settled by way of compromise, the share of the family members in the properties of late Ramphal Kaushik. It was further claimed that after due deliberations, they finalised the Family Arrangement dated 10.10.2009. It was asserted that, the share of the family members in the properties of late Ramphal Kaushik, had already been settled by an Oral Agreement; however, to avoid any future dispute, it was reduced into the Family Arrangement dated 10.10.2009, in presence of a common family friend, Sh. Rishal Singh.

6. It was stated that Late Ramphal Kaushik had purchased many immovable properties, under the name of various family members from the joint family funds. The Family Arrangement dated 10.10.2009 was essentially for recording the mutual consent of all the share-holders and to avoid any future litigation. The said Family Arrangement was duly signed and acknowledged by all the share-holders, including Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

7. This Family Arrangement dated 10.10.2009, included an agricultural land admeasuring 12 Bighas 14 Biswas out of Khasra No.51/21(0-11), 22(4-6), 23(0-14), 28(0-4), 57/2(2-3), 3(4-16) situated in the revenue record of Village Bakoli (hereinafter referred to as ‘Suit Property’), which was purchased by late Ramphal Kaushik, in the name of Defendant No. 2, Smt. Chandrawati. Though the share of the family members in the said Property was already settled, however, it was not divided in metes and bounds and was agreed to remain joint.

8. It was further claimed that Defendants No.3 and 4

Click Here to Read the rest of this document