Smt. Alka Bhatia vs Shri Kanhiya Lal Bhatia
2015 Latest Caselaw 1843 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     R.S.A. No.382/2014 & C.M. No.20240/2014

                                        Decided on : 3rd March, 2015

SMT. ALKA BHATIA                                   ...... Appellant
             Through:             Mr. Niraj Chaudhury & Mr. A.S. Sharma,
                                  Advocates.

                         Versus

SHRI KANHIYA LAL BHATIA                             ...... Respondent

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section

100 of the CPC against the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed by the

learned first appellate court in R.C.A. No.8/13 affirming the ex parte

judgment and the decree dated 22.11.2011 dismissing the suit bearing

No.6/2010 of the appellant/plaintiff.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also

gone through the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant is that the present regular second appeal involves substantial

question of law inasmuch as the family settlement which was arrived at

between the parties on the basis of which the suit for declaration,

mandatory and permanent injunction was filed by the appellant was not

required to be compulsorily registered. It has been stated by him that the

family settlement was as a matter of family arrangement and though he

had performed his part of the obligation in terms of the family settlement,

the respondent is now stopped from retracing his steps. The appellant has

also sought to place reliance in this regard on judgments of this court in

case titled Amarjeet Lal Suri vs. Moti Sagar Suri & Ors.; 119 (2005) DLT

295 and Vikram Singh & Anr. Vs. Ajit Inder Singh; 210 (2014) DlT 145

(DB).

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for

the appellant and have also gone through the record. Before dealing with

the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it may be

pertinent here to give brief background of the case.

4. The present appellant filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and

permanent injunction. The appellant/plaintiff had claimed that the

Release Deed dated 13.1.2009 and Disclaimer Deed dated 16.1.2009 be

declared as null and void and that the defendant/respondent has not

become the owner of 1/3rd undivided share in Property No.737, Gali

No.1, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-06 and owner of the share of the predecessor-

in-interest of the appellant in M/s Vikram Footwear being run at 6,

Kaushalaya Bhawan, Shoe Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The permanent

and mandatory injunction was sought with regard to handing over

possession and ownership of Property No.656, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh,

Haryana and possession of property No.737, Gali No.1, Sadar Bazar,

Delhi as well as M/s Vikram Footwear being run at 6, Kaushalaya

Bhawan, Shoe Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

5. The case which was setup by the appellant was that one Udho Dass

Bhatia had three sons, namely, Kanhaiya Lal, who was the defendant in

the suit, Bhawan Dass and Laxman Dass. The present appellant is the

legal heir of Laxman Dass Bhatia. It was alleged that on 10.7.2002, a

deed of family settlement was entered into between Udho Dass Bhatia

and his three sons by virtue of which the family assets were divided. In

terms of that division, the appellant is purported to have executed a

Release Deed and the Disclaimer Deed in the family business. But as she

or her predecessor-in-interest was not reciprocated with the

corresponding obligation by the respondent especially with regard to plot

No. 656, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, the suit was filed whereby the

appellant wanted to retrace her steps with regard to the Release Deed and

the Disclaimer of family business and also seek mandatory injunction

with regard to possession of the said plot as well as the possession of the

family business in footwear.

6. The written statement was filed; however, after filing of the written

statement, the respondent was proceeded ex pare. In the written

statement, the defendant/respondent admitted the factum of family

settlement but submitted that the terms and conditions could not be

performed due to certain differences between the parties. The trial court

dismissed the suit purely on the ground that as the family settlement was

not a registered document; therefore, the same could not be relied upon

by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was filed in which also the

appellant was unsuccessful.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance

on the two judgments of this court and raise a contention that the family

settlement does not require compulsory registration and, therefore, the

document which has been a document of family arrangement ought to be

looked into for the purpose of granting relief to the appellant.

8. A perusal of the judgments which have been relied upon by the

learned counsel for the appellant overlooks the fact that the law with

regard to the family settlement or family arrangement or document by

whatever name it is called, makes a clear distinction where the family

arrangement or the family settlement is only recorded by way of a

memorandum of oral settlement, which is pre-existing between the parties

and is reduced into writing. In such an event, the document does not

require a compulsory registration and the memorandum of settlement

evincing reducing in writing of the oral settlement can be relied upon. As

against this, a document which in itself is a family settlement between the

parties or amongst the parties and per se and creates a right, titled or

interest in respect of any property has to be compulsory registered in

terms of Section 17 (1) (c) of the Registration Act, 1908. It may be

pertinent here to mention that Section 17 (1) (c) clearly lays down that

any document which creates any right, title or interest in any immovable

property, the value of which is more than Rs.100/- requires, compulsory

registration.

9. In the instant case, the document of settlement or the family

arrangement, what the appellant calls, is not reduced into a memorandum

or a settlement of oral arrangement which has been arrived at between

Udho Dass Bhatia and his three sons and therefore, the said document

requires compulsory registration. The document which has been referred

to by the appellant is in itself creating right, title or interest in respect of

properties of which the appellant is claiming the mandatory injunction;

for example plot No.656, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, which is

owned by Udho Dass Bhatia and possession is being claimed by the

appellant. Therefore, this document requires compulsory registration.

10. Since this aspect of the matter has already been dealt with by the

two courts below concurrently against the appellant and no substantial

question of law is shown to be arising, I feel the present appeal is totally

misconceived. The judgments which have been cited by the learned

counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case

because the law which is laid down in the said judgments is in the facts of

those two cases where there was an oral arrangement between the parties

and the same was reduced into writing. Therefore, this appeal is not

having any merit and the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

MARCH 03, 2015/'AA'