RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS. versus MANJIT KAUR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1138 · Decided: 31-07-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
1138
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1138
RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL & ORS.
v.
MANJIT KAUR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7764 Of 2014)
JULY 31, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908 – s. 17 – Document of family settlement
– The predecessor of the appellants asserted that his ownership
and possession in respect of the suit land comprising Khasra No.
935/1 and 935/2 including constructions thereon of 16 shops, a
service station and a boundary wall with Samadhi of his wife in the
land, was accepted and acknowledged by his two brothers in a
family settlement – However, dispute arose between predecessor of
the appellants and his brothers regarding the suit land – Thereafter,
a memorandum of family settlement dated 10.03.1988 was executed
between the parties – The brothers of the predecessor of the
appellants, however, again raised new issues to resile from the family
arrangement – As a result, a suit was filed by plaintiff/predecessor
of the appellants against his brothers, original defendant nos. 1 &
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1139
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 ov

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