The Delhi High Court in Dr Sanjiv Gupta & Anr. v/s Sh. S.S. Verma laid down that registration of a Family Arrangement is necessary only if the terms are reduced to writing and not when the terms are decided orally.
The Hon’ble Bench observed that "It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable"
In the instant case the Parties hereto, who are members of the same family, on 27th March,
2013 on the festival of Holi, bonafide arrived at an oral Family Agreement in respect of all the properties mentioned in front of the Hon’ble Court.
The decision in the case of Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, was relied upon, it reads:
“… 15. There is a long line of judgments of this court dealing with the question as to whether a family arrangement is compulsorily registrable. We need only refer to the case of Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation. This Court has summed up the essentials of the family settlement in the following proposition:
…………………… (4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable………”