Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme 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