219 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 20.02.2025 Smt. Shavinder Kaur and others ...Appellants Vs.

Gurdeep Singh (deceased) through his Lrs and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Darika Sikka, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. G. S. Nagra, Advocate Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocate for the respondents.

***

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J. (Oral)

1. The defendants assail the correctness of the First Appellate Court's judgment which in turn has reversed the judgment of the trial Court.

2. On 01.03.2006, the plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 107 kanals 06 marlas is in joint ownership and possession of the parties and the alleged family partition dated

02.07.1991 is illegal, null and void.

3. The defendants contested the suit on the basis of deed of partition on 02.07.1991. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs suit while observing that the family partition dated 02.07.1991 has already been acted upon.

4. The First Appellate Court has reversed the trial Court's decree on the following two grounds:-

1. The deed of family partition is in the praesenti, hence, required mandatory registration.

2. As per family partition, the parties were to get their khewats separated from revenue authorities but no steps were taken in this direction.

5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper-book.

6. It would be noticed here that the plaintiff after giving his deposition in examination-in-chief and after having been partially cross- examined did not come into the witness box to complete his cross-examination. The plaintiffs examined PW2-Tarsem Singh and PW3-Balkar Singh. Both these witnesses of the plaintiffs admitted that there was a family partition and the same have been acted upon. The relevant extract of their statements are extracted as under:-

“It is correct that on 02.07.1991 a writing for family partition took place between the plaintiff and defedt. It is correct that the plaintiff and defdt. started to their own land separately by virtue of the partition dated 02.07.1991.”

7. In ‘Kala and others vs. Deputy Director of Cosolidation and others’, 1976 AIR (SC) 807, a celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that unregistered family partition will be honoured by the Court by invoking the doctrine of estoppel if the family partition has been acted upon. In ‘Gian Chand vs. Bhagwant Rai’, in RSA-395-2021, decided on

16.07.2021, this Court examined the aforesaid aspect in the following manner:-

"The observations of law made in paragraph 26 of the judgment in Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. Vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. AIR 1966 SC 1836 reflects the view of the Court which is extracted as under:-

26. Briefly stated, though conflict of legal claims in present or in future if generally a condition for the validity of a family arrangement, it is not necessarily so. Even bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims will suffice. Members of a joint Hindu family may, to maintain peace or to bring about harmony in the family, enter into such a family arrangement. If such an arrangement is entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair in the circumstances of a particular case, Courts will more readily give assent to such an arrangement than to avoid it.

The admissibility of the family settlement has been the subject matter of debate. The courts have always held that once the dispute between the parties is settled by way of a family settlement, the courts should be loath to disturb the same. In Kale and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976)3 SCC 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the alleged family settled is reduced into writing and is in the form of a memorandum, then the same does not require registration.

With regard to a family settlement, the court h