Nirmal Singh and Another vs Bhagwant Singh and Others

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The order dated 25.7.1998 is impugned in this revision petition. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and injunction restraining the defendants not to alienate any part of the suit land in any manner whatsoever. During the course of examination, PW-1 referred to the agreement/settlement dated 27.4.1986 alleged to have been executed between the parties. At that stage, learned counsel for the defendants raised an objection that neither the said agreement was admissible in evidence nor the same could be exhibited.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court held as under:-

"Therefore, I find force in contention of learned counsel for the defendants that the agreement sought to be produced by the plaintiff is admissible in evidence since the same has not been registered and does not conform to the mandatory provision of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is sustained."

Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Charan Das Vs. Girjanandini Devi and Others, , argued that the said document was admissible in evidence. He relies upon the observations of the Hon''ble Apex Court to say that the consideration for a family settlement is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst the relations and its recognition of the right. It was held in that case that the compromise entered into by the parties to the previous suit and embodied in a decree was in substance a family arrangement and was binding on all.

I am unable to see what help the learned counsel for the petitioners wishes to draw from this judgment. The questions involved in the present case were neither in controversy nor were agitated in that case.

The controversy in the present case is primarily governed by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhoop Singh Vs. Ram Singh Major and others, .

This Court has no occasion to consider the question in great detail in the case of Hans Raj and Ors. v. Mukhtiar Singh, 1996(3) RCR 740, where the Court has held as under:-

"The law with regard to registration of such document has been consistent. But it has been developed by each subsequent pronouncement of the highest court of the land. In the case of Maturi Pullaiah and Another Vs. Maturi Narasimham and Others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:-

"The family arrangement will need the registration only if it creates any interest in immovable property in presenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein. In case, however, no such interest is created, the document will be valid despite its non-registration and will not be hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act."

Again in the case of Kale and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, the Supreme Court reiterated the above principle with approval but enlarged the scope of an oral settlement which is acted upon between the parties in the following observations:-

"The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. The registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also a distinction should be made between a documents containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court or making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and is, therefore, not compulsorily registerable."

Applying the above well settled principle of law that if a document does not confirm or accepts pre-existing rights, it cannot be said to be a memorandum or settlement which does not require registration."

The above conclusions of this Court are totally in consonance with the dicturn contained in the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Bhoop Singh (supra).

Applying the above well settled principle of law to the facts of the present case, the agreement dated 27.4.1986, annexure-P-1 to this petition, is the relevant document for determination of the controversy. Relevant portion of annexure P-1 reads as under:-

"Today on 27.4.86, we the following members of the family of Shri Bhagwant Singh Ahluwalia of village Jameetgarh, enter into the following settlement with regard to our personal and joint property.

xx xx xx xx Out of the afore-mentioned whole property 1/4th share of the entire property which comes to about 14 killas is given from the three shares to Shrimati Baldev Kaur wife of Shri Bhagwant Singh and Shri Bhagwant Singh son of Shri Hira Singh, in equal shares. The income from this land will be theirs till life.

xx xx xx xx At this time one tractor and all the connected implements of the tractor and one motor are in the name of Kuldeep Singh son of Shri Bhagwant Singh, xxx xxx"

Upon plain reading of the above language, one has to come to an inevitable conclusion that the rights of the parties to their respective shares were created for the first time by the agreement dated 27.4.1986. It was neither reaffirmation of existing rights nor it established the partitioned rights at any point of time prior to the execution of the said document. Consequently, the document was hit by the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act.

For the reasons aforestated, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs.