Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes State Election Commission's Cancellation of Panchayat Elections in Punjab J&K High Court Quashes FIR Against Bajaj Allianz, Asserts Insurance Dispute Shouldn’t Be Criminalized Sole Eyewitness's Testimony Insufficient to Sustain Murder Conviction: Madras High Court Acquits Three Accused in Murder Case Presumption of Innocence is Strengthened in Acquittal Cases; Appellate Courts Must Respect Trial Court Findings Unless Clearly Perverse: Delhi High Court NDPS | Physical or Virtual Presence of Accused is Mandatory for Extension of Detention Beyond 180 Days: Andhra Pradesh HC Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Welfare Benefits for Construction Workers Due to Model Code of Conduct Section 131 of Electricity Act Does Not Mandate Finalized Transfer Scheme Before Bidding: Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Privatization of UT Chandigarh Electricity Department Revenue Authorities Must Safeguard State Property, Not Indulge in Land Scams: Madhya Pradesh High Court Proposed Amendment Clarifies, Not Changes, Cause of Action: High Court of Jharkhand emphasizing the necessity of amendment for determining real questions in controversy. EWS Candidates Selected on Merit Should Not Be Counted Towards Reserved Quota: P&H High Court Finance Act 2022 Amendments Upheld: Supreme Court Validates Retrospective Customs Authority for DRI Mere Breach Of Contract Does Not Constitute A Criminal Offense Unless Fraudulent Intent Exists From The Start: Delhi High Court Anticipatory Bail Not Intended As A Shield To Avoid Lawful Proceedings In Cases Of Serious Crimes: Allahabad High Court Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Light of Prolonged Detention and Delays in Trial U/S 480 BNSS Provision Bombay High Court Orders Disclosure of Candidates' Marks in Public Recruitment Process: Promotes Transparency under RTI Act Maintenance | Father's Duty to Support Daughters Until Self-Sufficiency or Marriage: Karnataka High Court Designation of Arbitration 'Venue' as 'Seat' Confers Exclusive Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Rules in Dubai Arbitration Case Corporate Veil Shields Company Assets from Partition as Joint Family Property: Madras High Court Principal Employers Liable for ESI Contributions for Contract Workers, But Assessments Must Be Fair and Account for Eligibility: Kerala High Court Government Entities Must be Treated Equally to Private Parties in Arbitration Proceedings: Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Resumption of Disciplinary Inquiry Against Storekeeper in Ration Misappropriation Case

Family Settlement Not Registered Under Indian Registration Act, 1908 Cannot Be Considered for Division of Properties: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that an unregistered family settlement cannot be taken into account for the division of properties. The judgment in the case of Om Singh & Anr. V. Sham Singh & Anr., delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, revolved around a dispute over family property in a joint Hindu family setting.

 

The key legal issue in this case was whether an unregistered family settlement, dated 10.10.2011, could be enforced for dividing family properties among the members of a joint Hindu family. The High Court emphasized the importance of registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, for family settlements that involve property rights.

 

The dispute involved two parties claiming ownership and possession over certain family properties. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, asserting ownership based on the unregistered family settlement. The appellant-defendants challenged the validity of this settlement, questioning its enforceability.

 

Validity of Unregistered Family Settlement: The High Court noted that the family settlement required compulsory registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Since it was unregistered, the settlement couldn’t be considered for property division, and by implication, the properties remained joint.

 

Protection of Admitted Possession: The Court upheld the decision to protect the respondent-plaintiff’s possession of certain properties. This was justified as the appellant-defendants admitted the respondent-plaintiff’s possession over these properties.

 

No Exclusive Possession Established: The appellants failed to prove their exclusive possession over the disputed properties. The Court clarified that for granting injunction, it primarily concerns itself with possession.

 

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, finding no merit in the appellant’s arguments. No substantial question of law was determined to arise from the case, leading to the upholding of the lower courts’ decisions.

Date of Decision: 01.04.2024

Om Singh & Anr. V. Sham Singh & Anr.

Similar News