Registration of Memorandum of Family Settlement not mandatory

Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur

Facts:

The appellant- Ravinder Kaur legal heir of Harbans Singh, who was the original petitioner, son of Niranjan Singh, resident of Sangrur, Punjab against his real brothers Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh (original defendants nos- 1 and 2) for a declaration that he was the exclusive owner of land measuring 11 karnals 17 marlas comprising of Khasra nos. 931/1 and 935/2 situated at Mohalla road and other properties referred to in the suit. Harbans Singh purchased the suit land after which disputes arose in 1970, between him and his brothers regarding its ownership. A family settlement was reached under which Harbans Singh was accepted as the owner of the suit land and the construction therein and that the name of Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh would exist in the revenue record as to the extent of half share. The original petitioner constructed 16 shops, Samadhi of his wife- Guruchan Kaur and one service station with a boundary wall in the suit land with his own money. Despite the settlement reached, the original defendants raised disputes claiming half share in land of which Harbans Singh was acknowledged as the owner; so it was decided to prepare a memorandum of family settlement incorporating the terms already settled between the parties as mentioned above. This memorandum of family settlement was executed on 10-03-1988. However, even after execution of the memorandum of family settlement the original defendants raised new issues to retract from the memorandum. Thus, Harbans Singh filed a petition to declare him as the owner of the suit land, an alternative plea was filed stating that since he was in possession of the suit land for the past 12 years to the knowledge of the defendants, he had acquired ownership of the land by way of adverse possession, the original plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit and is represented by his legal heirs. The trial court in its judgement dated 19-01-2000, held that the suit partly succeeds and partly fails and the original plaintiff was declared party to the extent that he is the owner of Khasra 935/1/1/1 (5-19) and 93/1/1/2 (5-18). The petitioner/ appellant aggrieved by this decision filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which upon evidence and fact-finding held the original plaintiff as the owner of the suit land along with the construction of 16 shops, a Samadhi, one service station and a boundary wall. A second appeal was filed before the high court, the single-judge bench opined in favour of the respondents that a document which for the first time creates a right in favour of the plaintiff an immovable property in which he has no pre-existing right would require registration, as mandated by law; thus setting aside the judgement of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree passed by the Trial Court. An appeal was filed by the petitioners, before the Supreme Court against the judgement of the High Court for the restoration of the judgement of the first appellate court.

Issues:

1. Whether a memorandum of family settlement regarding immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- requires to be registered under section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
2. If the family members can resile from the arrangements made under memorandum of family settlement accepted and acted upon.
3. Whether the document of memorandum of family settlement was transferred in favour of the plaintiff?
4. Whether the acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and if in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff is there any bar under the Limitation Act to sue on that basis.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908.
• Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Petitioner Contention:

The appellant contended against the decision of the High Court in reversing the judgement of the First Appellate Court. It was contended that the high court did not appropriately deal with the findings of the First Appellate Court in favour of the appellant. The appellate court had stated that the memorandum of family settlement did not require registration as it merely stated terms of already decided arrangement between family members instead of creating any rights for the suit land. It was established that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land with his own money and the construction on the land was also made out of his own money and he was in possession of the land, this was supported by evidence on record. Also as per the family settlement, the plot in Prem Basti belonging to the petitioner was given to Sohan Singh which was in possession of Mohan Singh and another plot purchased by the plaintiff in the name of his son Vikramjit Singh was given to Mohan Singh and his wife, this property was later sold to one Surjit Kaur; so it was established that the parties acted upon the family settlement, terms of which were decided in 1970 and executed in form of memorandum in 1988. According to the family settlement actions were taken, so the defendants could not resile from the said arrangement, they were estopped from disowning the said arrangement already accepted and acted up on. The petitioners prayed for restoration of the judgement of the First Appellate Court and to set aside the impugned judgement of the High Court.

Respondent Contention:

The respondents contended that the High Court had rightly considered the document containing terms and arrangements of family settlement and thus, stated that it was essential to get it registered. They also contended that there was no family settlement in 1970 and that the signatures of defendants were forged and fabricated on the memorandum of family settlement made in 1988. The High Court held that the document of the memorandum is inadmissible as evidence for it was not registered despite the transfer title in immovable property being worth more than Rs. 100/- and so restored the partial decree of the Trial Court. It was contended that the view taken by the High Court is unexceptionable.

Observations made by the Court:

The court observed the fact-findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court and which were not disputed by the High Court, it was proved that there indeed was a settlement between the parties regarding the suit land and it was even acted upon by them without exception. The court found merit in the findings of the First appellate court that proved that the memorandum of family settlement did not require registration and the estoppel of the defendants from retracting from the family settlement. It observed that the High Court made a mistake by interfering and reversing the judgement of the First Appellate Court.

Judgement:

The court held that the document dated 10-03-1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement and it did not require registration. The court stated that it did not feel necessary to examine the plaintiff’s alternative plea, however it was mentioned that as observed by the Trial Court, the plaintiff’s possession was only permissive possession. The impugned judgement of the High Court was set aside and the judgement and decree of the First Appellate Court was restored in favour of the plaintiff.