Unregistered Family Settlement Creating Rights in Land Is Inadmissible in Law: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Land Ownership Dispute

“When the foundation of an alleged oral partition is unproved and a subsequent memorandum seeks to create fresh rights in immovable property, registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act becomes mandatory” – Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a decisive verdict affirming the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership and possession over agricultural land based on an alleged oral family settlement and a subsequent unregistered memorandum dated 02.02.2006.

Justice Nidhi Gupta held that neither the oral partition nor the written memorandum was proved in accordance with law, and further ruled that the memorandum could not operate to create rights in land without compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

The Court emphasized that no substantial question of law arose in the matter and reiterated that concurrent factual findings, even if erroneous, cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless there is a gross procedural or legal error.

“Unregistered Memorandum Creating New Rights in Property Cannot Be Acted Upon” – Court Rejects Plea That Ex.P7 Was a Mere Record of Past Oral Partition

The central controversy was whether the memorandum of settlement dated 02.02.2006 (Ex.P7) was a mere record of a prior oral partition, or whether it created fresh rights in land, thereby requiring registration. The plaintiffs argued that the memorandum merely documented an oral family settlement that took place 30 years earlier and therefore did not require registration.

However, the Court categorically rejected this contention: “There is no evidence whatsoever to establish that any oral family settlement took place thirty years prior. The very foundation on which the memorandum Ex.P7 rests stands demolished.” [Para 10]

Further, Justice Nidhi Gupta noted that Ex.P7 did not even reference any prior oral settlement, nor did it acknowledge pre-existing rights. It instead created new rights in immovable property, including allotting specific land to the plaintiffs’ mother for the first time:

“Rights of Vidya Devi even over the Dhani were created for the first time by way of Ex.P7. As such, the said document was required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act.” [Para 13]

“Family Settlement Not Proved – Discrepancies in Evidence Render Document Unreliable”

The Court undertook a detailed examination of the evidence led to prove Ex.P7, including witnesses PW4 (defendant No.2), PW5 (alleged signatory), and PW6 (advocate who notarized the document). However, their testimony was riddled with contradictions and lacked credibility:

“PW5 admitted he was not aware of the settlement mentioned in his own affidavit… He didn’t know where the document was scribed… Though he claimed Ram Lubhaya had scribed it, PW6 Ram Lubhaya denied this in cross-examination.” [Para 11]

These contradictions led the Court to conclude that Ex.P7 was not proved in accordance with law, was unreliable, and not admissible to establish ownership or possession.

“Possession Not Proved – Aabiyana Receipts and Electricity Bills Found Unreliable and Vague”

The plaintiffs sought to bolster their claim of possession by relying on Aabiyana (water tax) receipts and electricity bills, but these too failed to meet the evidentiary standard.

The Court held that the receipts lacked identification of the suit land, and even reflected rates inconsistent with the prevailing official rate. Justice Gupta noted:

“PW1 admitted that the rate of Aabiyana at the time was Rs.25 per acre, but the receipts show payment of over Rs.400. They also do not identify the land in question.” [Para 12]

The Court also clarified that residing in the Dhani (farm dwelling) does not confer any legal rights over the agricultural land, especially when such possession is not proven:

“The plaintiffs were not shown to be in possession over the agricultural land. Even with respect to the Dhani, their status was not better than that of an ousted licensee.” [Para 12]

“Document Creates Rights in Land – Registration Mandatory Under Section 17 of Registration Act”

The High Court firmly rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Ex.P7 was merely a memorandum and not a conveyance, holding that it created rights in immovable property and thus attracted the mandatory requirement of registration:

“Ex.P7 does not acknowledge any pre-existing rights… Rather, it purports to create new ones. Hence, it is inadmissible without registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.” [Para 12]

Accordingly, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the memorandum could not be acted upon to confer ownership or possession.

“No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Cannot Interfere with Factual Findings”

Justice Nidhi Gupta underlined the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC in second appeals, reiterating that findings of fact cannot be reopened merely because the appellant disagrees with them.

Quoting the Supreme Court in Randhir Kaur v. Prithvi Pal Singh (2019) 17 SCC 71, the Court observed: “Jurisdiction in second appeal is not to interfere with the findings of fact on the ground that the findings are erroneous, however gross or inexcusable the error may seem to be.” [Para 14]

The Court also cited M/s Shivali Enterprises v. Godawari (Deceased) and Mst. Sugani v. Rameshwar Das, reinforcing that concurrent findings — including those based on documentary evidence — cannot be disturbed unless there is a legal or procedural error.

“No such error or defect in law or procedure has been brought to the notice of this Court.” [Para 15]

No Proven Oral Settlement, No Registered Document, No Possession – Appeal Rightly Dismissed

The High Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed on all essential fronts: there was no proof of the alleged oral settlement, the written document was inadmissible, and possession was not established.

“Even if the memorandum was signed, it neither referred to any oral partition nor was registered. Plaintiffs failed to establish any lawful claim to the suit land.” [Para 13]

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the second appeal and affirmed that: “Plaintiffs shall not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law.” [Para 13]

The judgment reinforces well-settled principles: An unregistered document that creates or declares rights in immovable property is inadmissible in evidence.

• Family settlements must be proved through consistent and credible evidence.

• Second appeal is not a forum for reappreciating facts already decided concurrently by lower courts.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2025