Memorandum Recording Past Oral Family Settlement Doesn't Require Registration If No Fresh Rights Created: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a memorandum merely recording an earlier oral family settlement does not require compulsory registration if it does not itself create or extinguish rights in immovable property, but only evidences a past arrangement already acted upon by the parties.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna made the observation while allowing a second appeal filed by a man challenging an appellate court judgment that had reversed a trial court decree in his favour in a long-standing family property dispute between four brothers. “A mere recital of what has already taken place, cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registering such a document,” the High Court observed while restoring the trial court's decree directing restoration of possession of the disputed property to the Plaintiff.Reliance was placed on Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar (2021) where the Supreme Court held that whether a document by itself „affects‟, i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question and it is found that the document merely records past transactions which have been entered into by the parties, and does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties, it would not attract Section 49(1)(a) of the Registration Act, 1908.The dispute concerned land jointly purchased by four brothers in Delhi. Plaintiff claimed that after most of the land was sold, the remaining portion was orally partitioned among the brothers and that a memorandum executed in October 1986 merely recorded the earlier oral family settlement. He alleged that one of his brothers subsequently encroached upon a shop and adjoining portion that had fallen to his share.Trial court had accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed possession in his favour. However, the first appellate court reversed the decree, holding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the oral family settlement or exclusive allotment of the suit property.Setting aside the appellate court's judgment, the High Court observed that the evidence on record overwhelmingly established that the parties had already partitioned the property by conduct. It noted that the brothers had executed separate sale deeds for their respective portions, obtained separate electricity connections, paid development charges and house tax independently, and had been enjoying their respective shares without interference.The Court further found that the Memorandum of Partition executed in October 1986, signed by all four brothers and accompanied by a site plan demarcating their respective shares, merely recorded an arrangement that had already been acted upon.Rejecting the contention that the memorandum was inadmissible for want of registration, the Court restored the trial court's decree directing the defendant to hand over possession of the disputed portions to the plaintiff.Appearance: Mr. Dalip Kumar Malhotra and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Malhotra, Advs for Appellant; Mr. Kunwar Karan and Sourabh Dhall, Advs. for R-4 & R-5. Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Mr. Mohd Talha, Mr. Ayush Dassi and Mr. Divyansh Malhotra, Advs. for LR‟s R-1.Case title: Shri Dhanpat Rai Gupta v. Shri Kashmiri Lal Gupta (Since Deceased) & Ors.Case no.: RSA 266/2013Click here to read order

Memorandum Recording Past Oral Family Settlement Doesn't Require Registration If No Fresh Rights Created: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Memorandum Recording Past Oral Family Settlement Doesn't Require Registration If No Fresh Rights Created: Delhi High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers