Jasbir Singh Bajaj v. Gurdeep Singh Bajaj

V.S Aggarwal, J.— Plaintiff Jasbir Singh Bajaj has filed the present suit seeking a declaration that he is the sole owner of lease hold rights of Plot No. 16, Block No. 48, Malcha Marg, Commercial-cum-Residential Premises, New Delhi.

2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 4 are brothers. They are sons of late Inder. Singh Bajaj who died on 24th July, 1987. The wife of Shri Inder Singh Bajaj had already died on 4.10.1985 Inder Singh Bajaj and Narinder Kaur had executed Wills dated 16.12.1985 and 3.5.1983 according to which they bequeathed their share in immovable property to plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 and 3 besides certain amounts given to the daughters. There were various conflicting claims and counter claims with respect to the movable and immovable properties. For the sake of peace and preservation of honour and dignity of the family and through the good office of Harbajan Singh Narula the plaintiff and defendants in order to resolve all family disputes voluntarily settled their controversy and an oral settlement was arrived at on 15.10.1986 The parties divided the properties by metes and bounds, as a result of which the plaintiff became the absolute owner of plot No. 16, Block 48, Malcha Marg, Commercial-cum-Residential premises. Details have been given about other properties which fell to the share of the defendants. Subsequently the same was reduced into writing on 31.12.1986 The oral family settlement in this process was incorporated therein. Plaintiff claims that clouds are being cast on his right to the property at Malcha Marg hence the present suit for declaration.

3. On 21st July, 1992 defendant No. 1 was appointed as the guardian ad-litem of defendant No. 8 who was a minor, defendant No. 2 was appointed as guardian ad-litem of defendant No. 10 and defendant No. 11 was appointed as guardian ad-litem of defendant Nos. 12 and 13 while defendant No. 3 was appointed as such of defendants 15 to 18.

4. In the joint written statement filed, it is not denied that disputes had arisen and oral settlement was arrived at. It was subsequently reduced into writing. However, it was alleged that the document required registration and in the absence of the same it cannot be given effect to.

5. There was no appearance on behalf of the defendants on 15.11.2000 and 12.3.2001 besides 9.4.2001 Today there was no appearance on behalf of defendants. In these circumstances the Court did not have the advantage of hearing of defendants learned Counsel.

6. From the pleadings of the parties it is obvious that it is admitted that there was an oral settlement which was subsequently reduced by way of memorandum with respect to part transaction.

7. The only objection taken up was that the transaction that was so arrived at subsequently required registration.

8. The said plea is totally denied of any merit and the answer is provided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Devi Singh Bhujil, AIR 1966 SC 292. The Surpeme Court held:

“Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be found. It is usually prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon. So that there be no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the parties reduce the family arrangement in writing with the purpose of using that writing as proof of what they had arranged and where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document would require registration as it is then that it would be a document of title declaring for future what rights in what properties the parties possess…. The document, to our mind, is nothing but a memorandum of what had taken place and, therefore, is not a document which would require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.”

9. In other words, it was concluded that if there is an oral settlement together with a memorandum reciting the earlier settlement, then it will not require registration. So the same effect is the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, AIR 1988 SC 881.

10. In face of the authoritative pronountement it requires no further elucidation and it must be held that the memo of family settlement dated 31.12.1986 did not require registration.

11. By virtue of the said settlement which has been admitted, the property referred to above fell to the share of the plaintiff. Therefore, he is entitled to the decree as prayed.

12. For these reasons the suit of the plaintiff is decreed holding the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the leasehold rights of property bearing number 16/48, Malcha Marg, Commercial-cum-Residential Area, New Delhi with super structures.

13. There shall be no order as to cost.

Suit decreed.