CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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.

Latest Legal News