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

Sufficient Pleadings and Convincing Evidence a Must to Establish an Oral Family Arrangement: Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court today dismissed the Regular Second Appeal No. 433 of 2022, underscoring the necessity of cogent and convincing evidence to prove an oral family settlement. The judgment delivered by the Honorable Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized that while an oral family arrangement does not necessitate registration, its establishment relies heavily on substantial evidence, a facet notably absent in the case at hand.

 

In this judgment, the court focused on the essentials of a family arrangement and the evidentiary requirements for its establishment. Specifically, it was held that while an oral family settlement is not required to be registered, proving its existence demands thorough and compelling evidence.

 

The dispute revolved around the right of way in property inheritance between two brothers, the appellant (defendant in the original suit) and the respondent (plaintiff). The plaintiff claimed a right of easement by necessity over a certain pathway, while the defendant contested this, citing an alleged oral family settlement involving an exchange of land parcels.

 

Essence of Family Arrangement: The court reiterated that a bona fide family arrangement can be oral, thus bypassing the requirement for registration. However, it stressed that such an arrangement must be proved with substantial evidence (Para 23-24).

 

Lack of Convincing Evidence for Family Settlement: In this case, the defendant’s claim of an oral family settlement exchanging specific property parcels was not convincingly established. The evidence provided, particularly by key witness DW2, was found lacking in terms of reliability and consistency (Para 18-24).

 

Right of Way Established for Plaintiff: The court upheld the trial court and appellate court’s finding that the pathway through the plaintiff’s property was legitimate and established, dismissing the defendant’s claim of an oral family settlement (Para 25-26).

 

The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, affirming the decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court. It concluded that the family arrangement, as contended by the appellant, was not satisfactorily established, and thus, the right of way as claimed by the respondent was found to be justified.

Date of Decision: April 5, 2024

Sandhyavu vs Peter

Similar News