KHUSHI RAM & ORS. versus NAWAL SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 1019 · Decided: 22-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1019
KHUSHI RAM & ORS.
v.
NAWAL SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5167 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 22, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.15 – Succession – Properties
inherited by female Hindus – “Family” – Family settlement – ‘J’, a
widow inherited share of her late husband in the land in question –
Family settlement – She gave said share to her nephews-respondents
(her brother’s sons) – Respondents filed suit against ‘J’ claiming
decree of declaration as owners in possession thereof – Respondents’
claim accepted by her, consent decree passed in favour of
respondents – Appellants (descendants of J’s late husband’s brother)
filed suit inter alia for declaring the decree invalid – Dismissed –
First and second appeals were also dismissed – Held: s.15(1)(d)
indicates that heirs of the father of a female are covered in the
heirs who can succeed – Thus, it cannot be held that the respondents
who were J’s nephews were strangers and not the members of the
family qua her – Further, she was the absolute owner when she
entered into settlement – All the Courts rightly dismissed the suit of
the appellants, which need no interference – Indian Registration
Act, 1908 – s.17(2)(vi).
Indian Registration Act, 1908 – s.17(1)(b), 17(2)(vi) – Consent
decree passed on the basis of family settlement, if required
registration – Held: Issue in the present case is squarely covered by
the judgment in Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. v. Rajkumar & Ors.
reported as 2020(3) SCALE 146 wherein it was held that since the
decree which was sought to be exhibited was with regard to the
property which was subject matter of suit, hence, was not covered
by exclusionary clause of s.17(2) (vi) and did not require registration
– In the present case also, the consent decree related to the subject
matter of the suit, thus was not required to be registered u/s.17(2)(vi)
– Courts below rightly held that the decree did not require
registration.
[2021] 4 S.C.R. 1019
1019
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1020
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
Words & Phrases – “Family” – Concept of – Discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 There is no dispute that in the earlier Civil
Suit No.317 of 1991 in which consent decree was passed on
19.08.1991, the subject matter of suit was the agricultural land
situated in Village Garhi, Bajidpur. Further the suit was decreed
on the written statement filed by Smt. ‘J’ (the widow) accepting
the claim of plaintiffs that there was family settlement between
the parties in which the half share in the land was given to the
plaintiffs of Civil Suit No.317 of 1991. [Para 12][1027-E-F]
1.2 In Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar & Ors.
this Court held that since the decree which was sought to be
exhibited was with regard to the property which was subject matter
of suit, hence, was not covered by exclusionary clause of Section
17(2) (vi) and decree did not require registration. The issue in
the present case is squarely covered by the said judgment. In
view of the fact that the consent decree dated 19.08.1991 relate
to the subject matter of the suit, hence it was not required to be
registered under Section 17(2) (vi). The consent decree dated
19.08.1991 was not registrable and Courts below rightly held that
the decree did not require registration. [Para 20][1036-G-H; 1037-
A]
Mohammade Yusuf & Ors. v. Rajkumar & Ors. 2020
(3) SCALE 146 – relied on.
2.1 It is necessary to find out what is the concept of family
with regard to which a family settlement could be entered. Every
party taking benefit under a family settlement must be related to
one another in some way and have a possible claim to the property
or a claim or even a semblance of a claim. Term “family” has to
be understood in a wider sense so as to include within its fold not
only close relations or legal heirs but even those persons who
may have some sort of antecedent title, a semblance of a claim or
even if they have a spes successionis. [Paras 22, 23][1037-C-D;
1038-A-B]
Ram Charan Das v. Girjanandini Devi and Ors. [1965]
3 SCR 841; Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1021
Consolidation and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 119 : [1976] 3
SCR 202 – relied on.
2.2 The defendants-respondents were nephews, i.e.,
brother’s sons of Smt. ‘J’. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
Section 15, deals with the general rules of succession in the case
of female Hindus for properties inherited by female Hindus, which
are devolved in according to Sections 15 and 16. A pe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.