Dismissed

Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Baldev Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Mar 2019RSA/6114/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this regular second appeal concerning a suit for permanent injunction and declaration regarding family property, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decree based on a valid family settlement deed, rejecting the argument that lack of registration invalidates an acknowledged partition among co-owners resolved in panchayat presence.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal against the decree in the underlying civil suit is dismissed.

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs Baldev Singh & Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.6114 of 2014 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.6114 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Order:25.03.2019

¶5

Surinder Singh and another

¶6

..Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Baldev Singh and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate, for Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellants.

¶12

Mr. Tarun Vir Singh Lehal, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

¶14

Defendants-appellants are in the regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below decreeing the suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

¶15

It is unfortunate that even after entering into a settlement before the Lok Adalat in 2 previous suits between the family members, the parties are still fighting in the courts.

¶16

Anoop Singh, the common ancestor has 4 sons Baldev Singh, Late Sh. Avtar Singh, Surinder Singh and Gurmit Singh. Defendantsappellants are Surinder Singh and Gurmit Singh. Property had devolved upon these sons from Anoop Singh. Avtar Singh died and he left behind Gurcharan Singh, his son, who has unfortunately died leaving behind plaintiffs no.2 and 3. The earlier compromise arrived at between the parties is Ex.P3, dated 18.02.2006. According to the aforesaid compromise, 2 suits NARESH KUMAR 2019.04.01 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

-2-

¶18

RSA No.6114 of 2014 (O&M)

¶19

which were pending between the parties were withdrawn in terms of compromise deed dated 18.02.2006. Defendants even after entering into settlement wanted to resile therefrom forcing the plaintiffs to file this suit. In the present suit, defendants pleaded that there was no compromise arrived at and the previous suit instituted was not proper as minors were not represented.

¶20

In evidence, Gurmit Singh appeared as DW1 and in crossexamination he admitted the previous civil litigation. He also admitted his signatures on points 'A and 'B' of Ex.P3, the compromise deed. DW2 Harbans Singh, Nambardar, who was also signatory to Ex.P3 admitted his signatures on point 'C'.

¶21

On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, both the courts decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs.

¶22

This court has heard learned counsels for the parties at length and with their able assistance gone through the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and the record.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the compromise deed was not registered and therefore, it cannot result in transferring immovable property worth more than Rs.100/- He further submitted that the courts have erred in taking Ex.P3 as a family settlement as it is only acknowledging possession.

¶24

This court has analyzed the argument of learned counsel and find no substance therein.

¶25

As regards the effect of document being unregistered, it may be noted that undisputedly the property had devolved upon the parties from Anoop Singh, so everyone was co-owner in the property. It has been

¶26

NARESH KUMAR 2019.04.01 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

-3-

¶28

RSA No.6114 of 2014 (O&M)

¶29

pleaded by the plaintiffs in para 5 of the plaint that they had left their share in village Laddal and for that reason only they were given more share in village Malakpur i.e. property in dispute. Such compromise was arrived at in the presence of panchayat members. Therefore, the courts have rightly held that it is a memorandum of family settlement which does not require registration.

¶30

As regards the next argument of learned counsel, the compromise deed Ex.P3 has been read over in an open court and it is apparent through the aforesaid document that not only the possession was settled, but entire dispute between the brothers was resolved. Hence, the argument of learned counsel that Ex.P3 is only qua possession is factually incorrect.

¶31

Hence, this court does not find any good ground to interfere.

¶32

The regular second appeal is dismissed.

¶33

March 25, 2019 (ANIL KSHETARPAL) nt JUDGE

¶34

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶35

NARESH KUMAR 2019.04.01 12:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Baldev Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Baldev Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harbans Singh and Others Vs Chhajju Ram

Ramotar and Anr. Vs Ami Lal and Ors.

M/S D.A.E. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Shri Balaji Rice Mill & Ors.

Sadhika Vs Sahnawaj

Kamal Taneja and Anr. Vs Roshan Lal and Ors.

Rajender Singh& Anr. Vs Zile Singh Since Deceased Thro Lrs Dharampal and Ors.