Unregistered Family Settlement Creating Rights De Novo In Self-Acquired Property Cannot Extinguish Eviction Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Chandigarh: Holding that an unregistered family settlement purporting to confer fresh title in a self-acquired property cannot extinguish a final eviction decree, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a tenant-son’s subsequent inheritance of a fractional undivided share does not defeat the decree or trigger merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Justice Deepak Gupta set aside an Executing Court order that had dismissed an execution petition as infructuous, underscoring that a co-sharer's undivided inheritance cannot be equated with exclusive ownership of demised premises.

The dispute originated when Chiranji Lal purchased a residential plot in Bhiwani in 1981 as his self-acquired property and let out a room to his son, Dilbag Singh, in 1985. Following an ejectment petition for rent arrears and impairment of utility, the Rent Controller directed Singh's eviction on March 12, 1992, which attained finality. When the father initiated Execution Petition No. 22 of 1997, the son filed objections asserting that an unregistered family settlement dated December 18, 1992 had made him the absolute owner of the portion, leading the Executing Court to dismiss the execution proceedings in December 2005.

Whether an unregistered family settlement transferring self-acquired property to a tenant without antecedent title can legally extinguish a final eviction decree under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Order 21 Rule 2 CPC?

Whether a tenant-judgment debtor's subsequent inheritance of an undivided fractional share in the deceased landlord's estate causes a merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 or bars co-heirs from executing an eviction decree?

Unregistered family settlement creating new rights in self-acquired property cannot confer title

The Court observed that the property was indisputably the self-acquired property of the father and the son held no antecedent ownership interest or pre-existing claim by birth. Drawing upon the Supreme Court rulings in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama, the Bench stressed that while a memorandum merely recording a pre-existing oral partition does not mandate registration, any instrument that creates, declares, or assigns rights de novo requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court noted that the writing purported to confer absolute ownership of a specified portion upon the son while imposing monetary obligations and reserving a right of resumption.

"The alleged memorandum is admittedly unregistered. Consequently, to the extent that it purports to create or declare ownership rights in the disputed immovable property, it cannot be given effect in view of Section 49 of the Registration Act. Its use for a legally permissible collateral purpose stands on a different footing, but the respondent cannot rely upon it to establish the very transfer of ownership which required registration."

Executing Court cannot casually infer waiver of a final decree under Order 21 Rule 2 CPC

Addressing the issue of adjustment and waiver, the Court analyzed Order 21 Rule 2 CPC, which prohibits executing courts from recognizing uncertified adjustments. While acknowledging that an earlier conditional remand order permitted examination of the settlement, the Court held that waiver requires intentional and unequivocal relinquishment of a known right. The Court found that the memorandum was completely silent regarding the ejectment decree and contained no undertaking by the decree-holder to abandon execution.

The Bench emphasized that the mere delay in filing execution within the limitation period prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act cannot be construed as abandonment.

"Waiver involves intentional relinquishment of a known right and must be established by clear and unequivocal conduct... The decree-holder was entitled to seek execution within the period prescribed by Article 136 of the Limitation Act. His decision to institute execution in 1997, within limitation, cannot be treated as evidence of waiver."

Inheritance of undivided fractional share does not cause merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) TP Act

Addressing the subsequent demise of the father during the revision proceedings, the Court examined whether the son's succession as a Class I legal heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 rendered the decree unexecutable. Relying on the Apex Court judgments in T. Lakshmipathi v. P. Nithyananda Reddy and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husn Bano, the Court held that merger under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act requires the entire interest of both landlord and tenant to unite in the same person in the same right.

The Bench explained that acquiring merely an undivided fractional interest in the estate makes the son a tenant-in-common, which does not confer exclusive ownership over the specific demised room.

"Succession to an undivided share is not an adjustment, satisfaction or discharge of the ejectment order. It creates a distinct ownership interest which must be worked out in accordance with the law governing co-ownership and partition. It does not confer upon the respondent exclusive title to the particular room from which he had been ordered to be ejected."

Eviction decree survives for estate's benefit; partition remedies remain separate

The Court further held, citing Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, that one co-owner is fully entitled to maintain eviction proceedings for the benefit of the entire estate. Because the eviction was grounded on non-payment of rent and property impairment rather than bona fide personal necessity, the right to execute survived the original landlord's death and devolved upon his estate, allowing his daughter and other legal representatives to pursue possession.

The Bench underlined that executing the decree will not amount to an adjudication of title or partition among the co-heirs, and the son retains the independent right to seek partition of his lawful share.

Allowing the revision petition, the High Court set aside the Executing Court's order dated December 12, 2005 and dismissed the judgment-debtor's objections. Restoring Execution Petition No. 22 of 1997, the High Court directed the Executing Court to conclude the eviction proceedings within three months, clarifying that the respondent's independent rights as a co-sharer in the estate remain open for adjudication in appropriate partition proceedings.

Date of Decision: November 12, 2026