Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi 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