- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Parkash v. Pritam Singh And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the decree dated 24.4.1984 (Ex.P.2) obtained by their mother, Smt. Kasturi Devi, in favour of the appellant (her son) concerning her share of the suit property was void for want of registration. The appellant contested the suit, explaining reasons for the mother's relinquishment of rights; Smt. Kasturi Devi was alive at the time of filing and supported the defendant-appellant. The defendants also pleaded that the suit property was the absolute property of defendant No.2 and that the plaintiffs could not challenge her decision to relinquish her share. The trial Court decreed the suit holding the decree void for want of registration for transfer of immovable property valued over Rs.100/-. The appellate court affirmed that decree. The appellant raised before this Court the question whether a decree suffered by a mother in favour of her son by way of family settlement can be held void on the ground that the son did not have a pre-existing right and the decree required registration.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a decree given by a mother in favour of her son pursuant to a family settlement can be held void for want of registration on the ground that the son did not possess a pre-existing legal right, i.e., whether such a decree requires registration.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant contested the suit and explained the reasons for Smt. Kasturi Devi's relinquishment of her rights in his favour (family settlement).
- He questioned whether a decree under a family settlement requires registration when the son did not have a pre-existing right.
Respondents' Arguments
- Defendants (respondents) pleaded that the suit property was the absolute property of defendant No.2 and that plaintiffs could not question her decision to relinquish her share in favour of defendant No.1.
- Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported the judgments of the courts below. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 conceded the claim of the appellant and filed an affidavit in his support, which was considered by this Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Charan Das v. Girianandini Devi AIR 1966 SC 323 at page 329 | That the word "family" in family settlement should not be narrowly construed; courts favor family arrangements that ensure amity and avoid future disputes. | Cited to support the proposition that family arrangements are to be broadly construed and are favored by courts to preserve harmony among relations. |
| Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil AIR 1966 SC 292 at page 295 | That a family arrangement may be oral or reduced to a memorandum in writing and, in such cases, registration is not required. | Relied upon to show that family settlements need not be registered even when recorded in writing as a memorandum of the agreement. |
| Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 SC 807 | The view that family settlement was not required to be registered was approved; family arrangements bind parties and operate as estoppel; "family" is not to be construed narrowly. | Applied to confirm that family settlements are binding, operate as estoppel, and that the term "family" covers persons beyond those with strict legal title. |
| Ramgouda Annaguada v. Bhausaheb AIR 1927 PC 227 | That even a person without a right of inheritance but closely related to the family could be covered by a family settlement. | Referenced (via Kale) to support the position that persons without pre-existing legal rights may be included in valid family settlements. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court considered rival submissions and the record, and examined precedents concerning family settlements. It applied established principles that (a) family arrangements are to be construed broadly and are favored by courts to maintain family harmony; (b) family settlements may be oral or recorded as a memorandum and need not be registered; and (c) family settlements can bind parties and operate as estoppel, and may include persons who do not possess pre-existing legal title. Applying these principles to the facts, the Court concluded that the decree obtained pursuant to a family settlement could not be held void for want of registration merely because the son lacked a pre-existing legal right.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the decrees of the courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed. No costs.
Implications: The direct effect is that the lower courts' decrees are overturned and the plaintiffs' challenge to Ex.P.2 fails. The decision applies established authority on family settlements cited in the opinion; the Court did not announce a new legal principle beyond those precedents.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.:— The respondent-plaintiffs filed suit for declaration to the effect that decree dated 24.4.1984, Ex.P.2 suffered by their mother, Smt. Kasturi Devi in favour of the appellant, their brother, with regard to her share of the suit property, was void for want of registration.
2. The appellant contested the suit, explaining the reasons for relinquishing of her rights by Smt. Kasturi Devi (who was also alive at the time of filing of the suit and who also supported the case of the defendant-appellant) who suffered decree in favour of the appellant. Further plea of the defendants was that the suit property was absolute property of defendant No. 2 and the plaintiffs could not question her decision to relinquish her share in favour of defendant No. 1 - appellant.
3. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the decree being transfer of immovable property of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, was void in absence of registration.
4. On appeal, the said decree was affirmed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that substantial question of law arises for consideration as to whether decree suffered by mother in favour of her son by way of family settlement can be held to be void on the ground that the son did not have pre-existing right and the decree required registration.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 supported the judgments of the courts below while learned counsel for respondent No. 1 conceded the claim of the appellant. He also filed an affidavit in support of the appellant which was considered vide order of this court dated 1.2.2005
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record of the case.
8. In Ram Charan Das v. Girianandini Devi AIR 1966 SC 323 at page 329, it was held “the word ‘family’ in the context is not to be understood in a narrow sense of being a group of persons who are recognised in law as having a right of succession or having a claim to a share in the property in dispute….The consideration for such a settlement, if one may put it that way, is the expectation that such a settlement will result in establishing or ensuring amity and goodwill amongst persons bearing relationship with one another….” “The courts lean strongly in favour of family arrangements that bring about harmony in a family and do justice to its various members and avoid, in anticipation, future disputes which might ruin them all.”
9. In Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil AIR 1966 SC 292 at page 295, it was held that family arrangement may be oral as its terms may be reduced into writing as a memorandum of what was agreed upon between the parties and in such a case, registration is not required. In Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation AIR 1976 SC 807, in para 10, the view that family settlement was not required to be registered, was approved by the Apex Court. In para 24 of the above said judgment, it was observed by the Apex Court that family arrangement was binding on the parties and operated as an estoppel against a party who took advantage thereof. In para 27, it was observed that “the word ‘family’ cannot be construed in a narrow sense so as to confine the parties to the family arrangement only to persons who have a legal title to the property”. In para 36, reference was made to Privy Council judgment in Ramgouda Annaguada v. Bhausaheb AIR 1927 PC 227, to the effect that even a person who does not have a right of inheritance but was closely related member of the family, could be covered by the family settlement. Referring to the said judgment, it was observed “yet having regard to the near relationship which the brother and the son-in-law bore to the widow, the Privy Council held that the family settlement by which the properties were divided between three parties was a valid one.”
10. Accordingly, answer to the question has to be in favour of the appellant.
11. For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed. Decree of the courts below is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. No costs.
R.M.S
Appeal allowed.
Alert