2018 (2) TMI 2097 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for declaration permanent injunction and in alternate for partition and possession of property - Plaintiff s case in effect is that the family settlement should be given full effect to and in a situation where the Defendants continued to claim rights to the Chandigarh property Plaintiff should be entitled to 1/3rd share of the Delhi property. HELD THAT - The family settlement is unregistered but is an exhibited document and is admitted by the parties. The fact that the signatures on the same are in original before the Court even if the same were not on original stamp paper it would be valid and binding on the parties. Objections raised by D2 to the family settlement are not tenable as he has acted as per the said family settlement. The Trial Court has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. D2 having derived the benefits from the family settlement has unnecessarily created a long standing dispute - Family settlements are intended to maintain and continue peace and cordiality among family members. Even if one family member does not abide by it the harmony of the family is disturbed. Courts therefore are to enforce the letter and spirit of family settlements without going into technicalities. The court after perusing the pleadings and documents does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgement of the Trial court. Trial court judgment is affirmed. In view of the conduct of D2 who kept the family embroiled in a long standing dispute after having fully derived benefit from the family settlement the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with Rs. 1 lakh as costs payable to the Plaintiff within 4 weeks.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misjoinder of Defendant No. 3.
2. Non-joinder of Smt. Pushp Lata Kataria and Smt. Saroj Gulati.
3. Binding nature of the family settlement dated 28th March 1993.
4. Existence of a codicil dated 3rd December 1995.
5. Plaintiff's entitlement to the declaration.
6. Plaintiff's entitlement to permanent injunction.
7. Plaintiff's entitlement to seek partition.
8. Plaintiff's entitlement to seek possession.
9. Entitlement of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to seek rendition of accounts.
10. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misjoinder of Defendant No. 3:
The Trial Court found that the suit is not bad for misjoinder of Defendant No. 3, as she was not a legal heir of the deceased parents of the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Non-joinder of Smt. Pushp Lata Kataria and Smt. Saroj Gulati:
The Trial Court held that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of Smt. Pushp Lata Kataria and Smt. Saroj Gulati.

3. Binding Nature of the Family Settlement Dated 28th March 1993:
The Trial Court concluded that the family settlement dated 28th March 1993 was binding on the parties. The original document was placed on record as Ex. PW-1/2 and was signed by all parties, thus proving its authenticity. The family settlement superseded the earlier Will dated 6th February 1986, which had bequeathed the Chandigarh property to the Plaintiff.

4. Existence of a Codicil Dated 3rd December 1995:
The Trial Court found that no codicil dated 3rd December 1995 was placed on record. Therefore, the Plaintiff was declared the absolute owner of the Chandigarh property.

5. Plaintiff's Entitlement to the Declaration:
The Trial Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the declaration as prayed for in the plaint, confirming his ownership of the Chandigarh property.

6. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Permanent Injunction:
The Trial Court granted a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the Plaintiff's enjoyment of the Chandigarh property.

7. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Seek Partition:
The Plaintiff's alternative prayer for partition of the Delhi property was considered, but the primary relief was granted based on the binding nature of the family settlement.

8. Plaintiff's Entitlement to Seek Possession:
The Plaintiff was entitled to seek possession of the Chandigarh property, as the family settlement was upheld.

9. Entitlement of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to Seek Rendition of Accounts:
The Trial Court did not find merit in the claim of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for rendition of accounts from the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3.

10. Relief:
The Trial Court affirmed the family settlement and granted relief to the Plaintiff, declaring him the absolute owner of the Chandigarh property and restraining Defendants from interfering with his possession.

Appeal Proceedings:
Defendant No. 2 (D2) raised several objections, including the validity of the family settlement against the registered Will dated 6th February 1986, the non-original nature of the family settlement document, improper stamping, and the requirement for registration under Section 49 of the Registration Act. The Plaintiff countered these arguments, emphasizing the binding nature of the family settlement and the conduct of D2, who had acted in accordance with the settlement.

Analysis and Findings:
The Court examined the original family settlement, which bore the signatures of all parties, and concluded that it was valid and binding. The family settlement was found to override the earlier Will of 1986. The Court referenced legal precedents, including Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Directors of Consolidation & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 119, which established that family settlements should be enforced without technicalities. The Court also noted that family settlements, even if unregistered, could be used to corroborate the existence of an arrangement and explain the conduct of the parties.

Conclusion:
The Trial Court's judgment was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 lakh payable to the Plaintiff within four weeks. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and harmony within families through the enforcement of family settlements.