2020 (7) TMI 731 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the document Ex.P6 required registration as by way of said document the interest in immovable property worth more than 100/was transferred in favour of the plaintiff? HELD THAT - The High Court committed manifest error in interfering with and in particular reversing the well considered decision of the first appellate Court which had justly concluded that document dated 10.3.1988 executed between the parties was merely a memorandum of settlement and it did not require registration. It must follow that the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit as granted by the first appellate Court ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court and more so in a casual manner as adverted to earlier. Having said that it is unnecessary to examine the alternative plea taken by the plaintiff to grant decree as prayed on the ground of having become owner by adverse possession. For the completion of record we may mention that in fact the trial Court had found that the possession of the plaintiff was only permissive possession and that finding has not been disturbed by the first appellate Court. In such a case it is doubtful that the plaintiff can be heard to pursue relief as prayed on the basis of his alternative plea of adverse possession. Impugned judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the document Exhibit P6 required registration as it transferred interest in immovable property worth more than ?100 in favor of the plaintiff.
2. Whether there was a valid family settlement and whether it was acted upon by the parties.
3. Whether the plaintiff constructed shops, a service station, and a boundary wall on the disputed property.
4. Whether the plaintiff became the owner of the suit land by adverse possession.
5. Whether the property in dispute was purchased using the income of Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property.
6. Whether the parties constituted a Joint Hindu Family.
7. Whether the defendants are estopped from denying the execution of the memorandum of family settlement by their act and conduct.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Registration for Exhibit P6:
The core issue was whether the document Exhibit P6, which transferred interest in immovable property worth more than ?100, required registration. The High Court had held that the document required registration as it created a right in favor of the plaintiff in immovable property where he had no preexisting right. However, the Supreme Court found that Exhibit P6 was merely a memorandum of a family settlement, which did not create or extinguish any rights in immovable property and thus did not require registration. The Court emphasized that the family settlement had already been acted upon by the parties, making it binding and enforceable.

2. Validity and Execution of Family Settlement:
The Supreme Court confirmed that the family settlement was valid and had been acted upon by the parties. The first appellate court had found that the family settlement was executed and acknowledged by all parties, including the construction of 16 shops, a service station, and a boundary wall by the plaintiff. The Court noted that the family settlement was aimed at resolving disputes and maintaining harmony within the family, and it was not open to the parties to resile from the arrangement once it had been acted upon.

3. Construction on Disputed Property:
The first appellate court had found that the plaintiff had constructed 16 shops, a service station, and a boundary wall on the disputed property, which was acknowledged by the defendants. This finding was supported by evidence and was not disturbed by the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the construction was done by the plaintiff in his capacity as the owner of the suit land.

4. Ownership by Adverse Possession:
The trial court had found that the plaintiff's possession of the suit property was permissive and not adverse. This finding was not disturbed by the first appellate court. The Supreme Court noted that since the plaintiff's possession was permissive, the claim of ownership by adverse possession was doubtful. However, this issue became irrelevant as the Court upheld the family settlement, which acknowledged the plaintiff's ownership.

5. Joint Hindu Family Property:
The defendants had claimed that the suit property was purchased using the income of Joint Hindu Family coparcenary property. However, the first appellate court found that the defendants failed to prove this claim. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the evidence did not support the assertion that the property was purchased using joint family funds.

6. Constitution of Joint Hindu Family:
The trial court had found that the parties did not constitute a Joint Hindu Family. This finding was upheld by the first appellate court and not disturbed by the High Court. The Supreme Court confirmed this finding, noting that the evidence did not establish the existence of a Joint Hindu Family.

7. Estoppel from Denying Family Settlement:
The first appellate court had found that the defendants were estopped from denying the execution of the family settlement due to their act and conduct. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting that the parties had acted upon the family settlement, making it binding and enforceable. The Court emphasized that family settlements, once acted upon, should be upheld to maintain harmony and avoid litigation.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in favor of the plaintiff. The Court held that the document Exhibit P6 was a memorandum of a family settlement and did not require registration. The family settlement was valid, acted upon, and binding on the parties, who were estopped from denying it. The plaintiff's ownership of the suit property was upheld based on the family settlement, making the issue of adverse possession irrelevant. The Court also confirmed that the property was not purchased using joint family funds and that the parties did not constitute a Joint Hindu Family.

← Previous Next →