Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. v. Manjit Kaur & Ors.
Background
Harbans Singh had sued his brothers Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh, claiming exclusive ownership of family land and constructions in Sangrur, Punjab, based on an oral family settlement reached in 1970 that was later reduced into a written memorandum in 1988 (Exhibit P-6). The first appellate court accepted this and decreed in his favour, but the High Court reversed that decree in second appeal, holding that the 1988 memorandum itself created or transferred rights in immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 and therefore legally required registration, which it did not have.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court restored the first appellate court's decree in favour of the plaintiff's successors. It held that a document which merely records the terms of a family settlement already arrived at and acted upon between relatives, rather than creating a fresh right for the first time, falls outside the compulsory registration requirement under Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act, 1908. The Court distinguished the precedents relied on by the High Court, which concerned a different category of documents (court decrees) under a separate clause of the same provision. Since it was unnecessary once this finding was made, the Court did not go on to examine the plaintiff's alternative claim of ownership by adverse possession. The appeal was allowed.
Lesson Learnt
A written memorandum that merely records the terms of a family settlement already reached and acted upon does not generally require compulsory registration to be relied upon in court, but a document that creates new rights in property for the first time does; the distinction can determine the outcome of long-running family property disputes.