Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kartar Chand Verma vs Veena Verma And Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M)
Reserved on: 17.01.2025
Date of Order:20.01.2025
Kartar Chand Verma (Deceased) through LRs
.Appellant
Versus
Veena Verma and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Gauri C. Kaushal, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE (Oral)
1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
1.1 In this Regular Second Appeal, the plaintiff assails the
correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below
while dismissing his suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that
he is co-owner and in joint possession of half share in 1/6th share of land
measuring 1 bigha and 16 biswas (1875 Sq. Yds.) and for grant of further
declaration that the decree suffered by Smt. Veena Verma in favour of her
two sons on 05.02.2015 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the
plaintiff's right with a consequential relief of permanent injunction.
1.2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2025 04:57:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -2-
1.3. The family tree of the parties is drawn as under:-
Guraya Ram - Budhwanti
(Husband) (Wife)
| DOD: 09.02.1990
| Will: 14.07.1988
----------------------------------
| |
Kartar Chand Verma- Promila Verma Dr. Prem Kumar Verma- Veena Verma
(Son) (wife) (Son) (Wife)
DOD: 19.12.2016 |_____________________|
Will: 31.03.2016 |
Himanshu Verma (son)
Yajush Verma (son)
1.4. On 11.05.1988, by virtue of three sale deeds, Smt. Budhwanti
and Smt. Veena Verma purchased 1/6th share of land measuring 1 bigha and
16 biswas in the following manner:-
"-Sale deed no.1135 sold by Pukhraj to Budhwanti,
-Sale deed no.1144 sold by Kapil Kumar to Veena
Verma,
-Sale deed no.1145 sold by Om Parkash to Veena Verma
and Budhwanti."
1.5. Smt. Budhwanti died on 09.02.1990 and on the basis of her
bequest dated 14.07.1988, Sh. Kartar Chand Verma, the plaintiff became
owner of the same. On 29.03.1997, settlement deed was executed between
the parties, wherein it was recorded as under:-
"6. That the above settlement has been arrived at
mutually vide which Ist party becomes owner of 2/3rd
portion of ground floor (Southern side) together with
absolute ownership of building on Ist & IInd floors and
on other further floors to be constructed later on by her.
The IInd party will have only 1/3rd share in the ground
floor on (Norther side) with right of passage as stated
above to the back yard and right to fix a door towards
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -3-
back side."
1.6. Subsequently, the parties executed two lease deeds on
31.03.1997 and 23.04.2004, with respect to ground floor of the premises. In
the aforesaid lease deeds, it was clearly recorded that Sh. Kartar Chand
Verma has 1/3rd share in the ground floor on Northern side, whereas Smt.
Veena Verma is the owner of 2/3rd share.
1.7. On 08.04.2002, Ex.D10, plaintiff, who is a retired Chief
Engineer, wrote a letter acknowledging that he is the owner of 1/3rd share of
the ground floor, whereas Smt. Veena Verma is the owner of remaining 2/3rd
share. The communication was sent while offering the property for lease.
1.8. However, subsequently, the plaintiff filed the suit, as already
noticed.
2. ARGUMENTS ADDUCED:
2.1. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along
with the photocopy of the record which was produced by the learned
counsels, correctness whereof is not disputed.
2.2. The learned counsel representing the appellant has made the
following submissions:-
(1) the settlement dated 29.03.1997, is unregistered and is a
result of fraud and the Deed of partition of the property
required registration.
(2) on 30.04.1997, a suit was filed against Municipal
Corporation wherein it was recited that Sh. Kartar Chand
Verma and Smt. Veena Verma are owner to the extent of
half share each
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -4-
2.3. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents
submits that the family settlement has already been acted upon and it is a
memorandum of family settlement which does not require registration.
3. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. This court has considered the submissions and has analyzed and
evaluated the arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties.
3.2. On careful reading of para 4 of the settlement deed executed on
29.03.1997, it becomes evident that the parties had previously constructed
the property while contributing the amount. Smt. Veena Verma contributed
Rs.3,00,000/-, whereas Sh. Kartar Chand Verma contributed Rs.1,25,000/-.
It is in that context that para 6 has been written, wherein it has been agreed
that Smt. Veena Verma would be owner of 2/3rd portion of the ground floor
(Southern side) together with absolute ownership of building on Ist & IInd
floors, whereas Sh. Kartar Chand Verma will only have 1/3rd share on the
ground floor on (Norther side) with right of passage as stated above to the
back yard. As already noticed, that the family settlement has acted upon and
there was no dispute between the parties till the suit was filed on 21.07.2010.
3.3. With regard to the first submission of the appellant's counsel,
who also relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sita
Ram Bhama vs. Ramavtar Bhama, (Civil Appeal No.3171 of 2018 (Arising
out of SLP(C) No.11067 of 2017), decided on 23.03.2018), it may be noticed
that the Supreme Court has been leaning in favour of upholding the family
settlement for the last more than 70 years. A three Judge Bench in Kale and
others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, (1976) 3 SCC 119,
after discussing in detail the previous decisions held as under:-
"10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -5-
of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be
reduced into the form of the following propositions:
(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to
resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and
equitable division or allotment of properties between the
various members of the family;
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be
induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence:
(3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case
no registration is necessary; (4) It is well-settled that
registration would be necessary only if the terms of the
family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a
distinction should be made between a document containing
the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under
the document and a mere memorandum pre pared after the
family arrangement had already been made either for the
purpose of the record or for in formation of the court for
making necessary mutation. In such a case the
memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights
in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within
the mischief of s. 17(2) of the Registration Act and is,
therefore, not compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the family
arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest
even a possible claim in the property 'It which is acknowledged
by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the
settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other
party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -6-
person and acknowledges him to be the sole 9 owner, then the
antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement
will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving
assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may
not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family
arrangement which is fair and equitable the family
arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the
settlement."
3.4. It is evident that the Supreme Court laid down six tests. If these
tests are applied, it becomes evident that the memorandum of family
settlement and subsequent documents fulfill the aforesaid requirement. In
Kale's case (supra), the Supreme Court also held that rule of estoppel can be
applied to debar the party who wants to resile from the settlement. In
Ravinder Kaur Garewal and another vs. Majit Kaur and others, (2020) 9
SCC 706, the aforesaid view was reiterated and it was held that such
document does not require registration and if due to any legal formal defect,
it is found that such document requires registration then rule of estoppel can
be invoked to hold the document.
3.5. The judgment in Sita Ram Bhama's case(supra) is in the
different context. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was
allowed by the trial court while rejecting the plaint. The plaintiff thereafter
filed a fresh suit for grant of possession and permanent injunction in which
the document dated 09.09.1994, evidencing family settlement was filed
which was objected to. The trial court held that document is not admissible
in evidence which was upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court held
that the document could be considered for collateral purpose and the
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011996
RSA-3079 of 2024 (O&M) -7-
plaintiff was granted opportunity to make good the deficiency in affixing the
stamp duty. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does not help the appellant.
3.6. Similarly, the second argument of the appellant's counsel lacks
substance because there is no estoppel against the defendant on filing a joint
suit wherein it was asserted that the parties are owners to the extent of equal
share. It has not been shown by the appellant that he changed his position
on account of the aforesaid assertions. Moreover, the appellant does not
dispute his signatures on two lease deeds as well as letter Ex.D10, wherein it
is acknowledged that his share is 1/3rd whereas 2/3rd belongs to the
defendants in the ground floor.
4. DECISION
4.1. For the foregoing discussion, finding no merit, the appeal is
dismissed.
4.2. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
JUDGE
20th January, 2025
nt
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
