Family Settlement Document Which Merely Records Past Transaction Does Not Require Compulsory Registration : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a family settlement document which merely sets out the existing arrangement and past transaction will not be compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, if it doesn't by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties.Therefore, such a document will not be hit by the bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act "If we apply the test as to whether the Khararunama in this case by itself 'affects', i.e., by itself creates, declares, limits or extinguishes rights in the immovable properties in question or whether it merely refers to what the appellants alleged were past transactions which have been entered into by the parties, then, going by the words used in the document, they indicate that the words are intended to refer to the arrangements allegedly which the parties made in the past. The document does not purport to by itself create, declare, assign, extinguish or limit right in properties. Thus, the Khararunama may not attract Section 49(1)(a) of the Registration Act," a bench of Justices KM Joseph and SR Bhat remarked in the case Korukonda Chalapathi Rao & Ors v Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar The bench in the present matter was considering as to whether a family arrangement "Kharurunama" which merely sets out the arrangement arrived at between the brothers was compulsorily registrable or not. The Supreme Court was deciding an appeal against a judgment of the High Court which held the family settlement document to be inadmissible in evidence as it was not registered and duly stamped.The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the document in question was not hit by the bar under Section 49 of the Registration Act, as it merely recorded a past transaction. The Court also held that the deed did not require stamping as well. Factual Background The appellant's case is that on November 17, 1980, a partition list was executed recording the fact of partition which was already effected. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar ("Respondent" in the present case) and his wife raised a dispute before elders that the portion given to them wasn't sufficient. Due to the elder's intervention, the respondents & the appellants settled that the respondent would give his portion to the second appellant and his one-third portion in Nadava Margam to the appellants and in consideration, the first appellant (Korukonda Chalapathi Rao) and second appellant had to give Rs 25000 and Rs 75000 to the respondent. After paying the said amounts, a Kharurunama dated April 15, 1986, was executed recording the facts. In December 1993, the respondent and his wife informed the appellants that they would vacate the portion in the second appellant's house and leave the same but demanded some more money as they intended to vacate the property. On December 8, 1993, the second appellant paid Rs 2,00,000 to the respondent and the respondent on the same day issued a receipt to the second appellant. Allegedly the respondent vacated and left the portion in his occupation in the house of the second appellant and shifted to a rented portion. The respondent instituted a suit seeking declaration of title over the plaint schedule properties (listed in Schedule F of the partition deed dated November 17, 1980) and for eviction of Korukonda Chalapathi Rao. The relief of consequential perpetual injunction was also sought against Chalapathi Rao. In his suit, he argued that while he was in hospital inpatient for treatment of his liver ailment, the appellants allegedly obtained his signatures on papers and made up the Khararunama dated April 15, 1986, and alleged receipt dated December 12, 1983. He also contended that the appellants were in occupation of his property. On their refusal to vacate and after the exchange of notice, the respondent filed the suit. Pursuant to the completion of evidence on Sampath Kumar's behalf, appellants filed an evidence affidavit and sought to mark the Kharurnama and receipt dated December 8, 1993. The trial court rejected the respondent's objections to marking the documents and posted the matter for evidence of DW 1 for marking the said documents. The Telangana High Court on April 22, 2016, found that the documents which were the unregistered family settlement "Khararunama" and receipt of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) by the respondent, in the absence of registration and not being stamped the documents were inadmissible. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Top Court. Counsel's Submissions Appearing for the appellants Advocate Vijay Bhaskar submitted that the High Court erred in not considering the family settlement "Khararunama" and receipt dated December 8, 1993, in accordance with well-established principles relating to the law of family settlement /family arrangement. To contend that there could ...

Family Settlement Document Which Merely Records Past Transaction Does Not Require Compulsory Registration : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Family Settlement Document Which Merely Records Past Transaction Does Not Require Compulsory Registration : Supreme Court

Shruti Kakkar

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers