Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. vs Manjit Kaur & Ors.

2 for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner of the suit land – The trial Court decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff – However, the First Appellate Court declared the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land – The First Appellate Court also held that the document dated 10.03.1988 was indisputably executed by the parties and the said document was merely a memorandum of family settlement and not a document containing terms and recitals of the family settlement made thereunder – Being a memorandum of family settlement, it was not required to be registered – In the second appeal, the High Court set aside the conclusion recorded by the First Appellate Court and opined that the document which for the first time create a right in favour of plaintiff in an immovable property in which he has no pre-existing right would require registration, being the mandate of law – Accordingly, the High Court restored the decree passed by the trial Court – On appeal, held: The Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 of the property in dispute reveals that Khasra No. 935/1/1/1 (5-19) shows name of original defendant nos. 1 & 2 as owners, whereas the name of plaintiff is shown against khasra No. 935/1/1/2 (5-18) as owner – Although the ownership of the suit property recorded in Jamabandi is of the concerned defendant, the plaintiff had carried constructed thereupon and was in possession – The possession of the plaintiff is admitted and he came in possession with the consent of his brothers – Notably, this finding has not been disturbed by the High Court – That apart, it is also established from records that a plot in the name of plaintiff was given to original defendant no. 2, which was otherwise in possession of original defendant no. 1 – Further, a plot purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his son was given to original defendant no. 1 and his wife – These facts clearly establish that there was not only univocal family arrangement between the parties, but it was acted upon by them without any exception – Now, it was not open to resile from the same – They were estopped from contending to the contrary – The High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well-considered decision of the First Appellate Court, which had justly concluded that the document dated 10.03.1988 was merely a memorandum of family settlement, and it did not require registration – Therefore, impugned judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside – The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is restored in favour of the plaintiff (appellants).

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The first appellate Court has also justly opined that the parties had acted upon the stated family settlement and if this Court may say so, to the prejudice of the other party. In that, the property in the name of plaintiff at Prem Basti was given to original defendant No. 2, which was otherwise in possession of original defendant No. 1. Further, the plot purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his son was given original defendant No. 1 and his wife, but that plot was admittedly sold by them to another person. Being a case of a family settlement between the real brothers and having been acted upon by them, it was not open to resile from the same. They were estopped from contending to the contrary. This crucial aspect has been glossed over by the High Court and if this Court may say so, the second appeal has been disposed of in a most casual manner. [Para 15][1155-C-E]

2. Be that as it may, the High Court has clearly misapplied the dictum in the relied upon decisions. The settled legal position is that when by virtue of a family settlement or arrangement, members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once and for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family, such arrangement ought to be governed by a special equity peculiar to them and would be enforced if honestly made. The object of such arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strives which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family, as observed in Kale & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.. [Para 16][1155-H; 1156-A-C]

3. The view so taken is backed by the consistent exposition in previous decisions referred to and duly analysed in the reported judgment. The question formulated by the High Court, in opinion of this Court, stands answered in favour of the appellants (plaintiff), in light of exposition of this Court in Kale. A priori, this Court has no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P-6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. The established facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties. That finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court being unexceptionable, it must follow that the document Exhibit P-6 was merely a memorandum of a family settlement so arrived at. Resultantly, it was not required to be registered and in any case, keeping in mind the settled legal position, the contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from the stated arrangement in the subject memorandum, which had recorded the settlement terms arrived at in the past and even acted upon relating to all the existing or future disputes qua the subject property amongst the (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to the concerned property. [Para 16][1159-C-D; 1160-A-B]

4. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well-considered decision of the first appellate Court, which had justly concluded that document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement, and it did not require registration. It must follow that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, as granted by the first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court and more so, in a casual manner, as adverted to earlier. [Para 19][1162-B-C]

Kale & Ors. vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 119 : [1976] 3 SCR 202 – relied on.

Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC

709 : [1995] 3 Suppl. SCR 466; Hans Raj & Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh (1996) 3 RCR (Civil) 740; Hari Shankar Singhania & Ors. v. Gaur Hari Singhania & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 658 : [2006] 3 SCR 726; Som Dev & Ors. v. Rati Ram & Anr. (2006) 10 SCC 788 : [ 2006]

5 Suppl. SCR 778; Sahu Madho Das v. Pandit Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481 : [1955] SCR 22; Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi, AIR 1966 SC 323 : [1965] SCR 841; Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil, AIR 1966 SC 292; Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi

Narasimham, AIR 1966 SC 1836; Krishna Biharilal v. Gulabchand (1971) 1 SCC 837 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 27; S. Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai, (1973)

2 SCC 312 : [1973] 1 SCR 570; Dhiyan Singh v. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145 : [1952] SCR 478; T.V.R. Subbu Chetty’s Family Charities v. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797 : [1961] SCR 624 –

referred to.

Jagdish & Ors. v. Ram Karan & Ors. PLR (2003) 133 P&H 182; Lala Khunni Lal v. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain, ILR 33 All 356; Mt. Hiran Bibi v. Mst. Sohan Bibi, AIR 1914 PC 44; Ramgopal v. Tulshi Ram, AIR 1928 All 641; Sitala Baksh Singh v. Jang Bahadur Singh, AIR 1933 Oudh 347; Mst. Kalawati v. Sri Krishna Prasad, AIR 1944 Oudh 49; Bakhtawar v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1926 All 173; Awadh Narain Singh v. Narain Mishra, AIR 1962 Pat 400; Ramgouda

Annagouda v. Bhausaheb, AIR 1927 PC 227;

Brahmanath Singh v. Chandrakali Kuer, AIR 1961 Pat 79; Mst. Bibi Aziman v. Mst. Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62; Kanhai Lal v. Brij Lal, AIR 1918 PC 70; Rachbha v. Mt. Mendha, AIR 1947 All 177; Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Smt. Satyawati Sood, AIR 1972 Delhi 171 (FB); Shyam Sunder v. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 All 382 – referred to.