Allowed

Madan Lal v. Sampat Raj

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2022CMA/737/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of a filing objection. The court observed that the respondents had not challenged the partition of specific properties conclusively but only the contentious property, and held that no independent relief could be expected. The objection was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed for time to file affidavit is allowed, and the interim order dated 06.08.2020 requiring the deponent to file the affidavit with respect to the document is set aside.

Madan Lal Vs Sampat Raj — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 737/2020

¶3

Madan Lal S/o Shri Khimraj Mehta, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Jain, R/o Kalalon Ka Baas, Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶4

Smt. Manju Devi W/o Shri Madan Lal Mehta, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Jain, R/o Kalalon Ka Baas, Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶5

----Appellants Versus

¶6

Sampat Raj S/o Shri Kundan Mal, B/c Jain, R/o Dhani Bazaar, Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶7

Babu Lal S/o Shri Kundan Mal, B/c Jain, R/o Kalyanpura, Marg No. 4, Barmer (Rajasthan)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari, Mr. Aditya Gupta

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Judgment

¶11

Pronounced on 18/08/2022

¶12

01vkns'k 43 fu;e 1(d) flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds rgr ;g vihy] vihykFkhZ&vizkFkhZ la[;k 02 o 03 us fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k 01] ckM+esj ds }kjk fofo/k nhokuh izdj.k la[;k 41@2019 lEirjkt cuke ckcwyky vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-01-2020 ds fo#) izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ;g vkns'k fn;k fd ewy okn ds fuLrkj.k rd vizkFkhZ] fookfnr laifRr dh ekSds dh fLFkfr ;Fkkor dk;e j[ks] fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djs rFkk mls vkxs [email protected] ugha djsA

¶13

(2 of 8) [CMA-737/2020]

¶14

02eSaus mHk;i{kksa ds ;ksX; vf/koDrkx.k dh cgl lquh] vk{ksfir vkns'k o vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶15

03;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k&vizkFkhZ la[;k 02 o 03 us ;g rdZ fn;k fd bl U;k;ky; dh vknsf'kdk fnukad 06-08-2020 ds vuqlkj ;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ la[;k 01 us vihykFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr nLrkost ¼i"B 47½] tks fd fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 28-01-1996 ls lacaf/kr gSa] ds ckjs esa 'kiFk&i= izLrqr djus ds fy, le; pkgkA fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 dqanuey] ckcwyky o lEirjkt ds e/; fu"ikfnr gqvk gSA fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 ¼i"B 44 ls 46½ ds vuqlkj caVokjs esa ckcwyky iq= dqanuey dks 04 laifRr;ka izkIr gqbZA fyf[kr caVokjk ¼i"B 47 ls 49½ fnukad 29-01-1996 esa dqanuey us vius iq= lEirjkt dks laifRr;ka nha] mudk fooj.k vafdr gSA bu caVokjsukeksa dh dqanuey us viuh cfg;ksa esa izfof"V dh] ftl ij izR;FkhZ&oknh ds gLrk{kj gSaA ckcwyky us caVokjs esa izkIr vius fgLls dh fookfnr Hkwfe esa ls vk/kk Hkkx vihykFkhZx.k dks foØ; fd;k] ftls Blue Print ¼i"B 69½ esa Proposed Plot ds :i esa fn[kk;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZx.k us fookfnr Hkwfe fjgk;'k ds fy, [kjhnh gS] ftl ij os edku dk fuekZ.k dj jgs gSaA caVokjkukek o ;knnk'r ds :i esa cgh esa caVokjs dh izfof"V dk iathdj.k vko';d ugha gSA vihykFkhZx.k ;g Undertaking nsus ds fy, rS;kj gS fd ;fn nkok fMØh gksrk gS] rks tks fgLlk izR;FkhZ&oknh dks izkIr gksxk] og e; fuekZ.k izR;FkhZ&oknh dks ns nsaxsA vihykFkhZx.k dks fuekZ.k dh vuqefr izkIr gks pqdh gSA izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ ds i{k esa dksbZ izFke n`"V;k ekeyk ugha curk gSA vk{ksfir vkns'k vuqfpr ,oa voS/k gS] ftls vikLr fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA mUgksaus vius bu rdksZa dh iqf"V esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; dh flfoy Civil Appeal No. 7764 of 2014 Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors. Versus Manjit Kaur & Ors. esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 31-07-2020 dh izfr izLrqr dhA

¶16

(3 of 8) [CMA-737/2020]

¶17

04;ksX; vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ us ;g rdZ fn;k fd fookfnr lEifRr izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 ds la;qDr LokfeRo o dCts dh gS] ftl ij mudk vk/kk&vk/kk fgLlk gSA fookfnr Hkw[k.M dk fdlh Hkh izdkj ls fof/kor :i ls caVokjk ugha gqvk gSA vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 us fookfnr Hkw[k.M esa ls vk/kk Hkw[k.M fcuk caVokjk fd, vizkFkhZ la[;k 02 o 03 dks foØ; dj fn;k gSA izkFkhZ o vizkFkhZ la[;k 01 ds firk dqUnuey us vius thoudky esa fnukad 29-01-1996 dks laifRRk;ksa dk dksbZ caVokjk ugha fd;kA bl laca/k esa izR;FkhZ lEirjkt us bl U;k;ky; ds vkns'k dh ikyuk esa fnukad 03-08-2021 dks 'kiFk&i= izLrqr fd;k] ftlesa mlus dfFkr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 o dqUnuey dh cgh dh fy[kr ds nLrkost dks Lohdkj ugha fd;k gSA bu nksuksa izys[kksa ij lEirjkt ds gLrk{kj ugha gSaA dqUnuey us mDr nksuksa izys[k fu"ikfnr fd, vFkok ugha] ;g rF; dk iz'u gS] tks ewy nkos esa fook|d fojpuk ds i'pkr~ mHk;i{kksa dh lk{; ys[kc) djus ds ckn fofu'p; fd, tkus ;ksX; gSaA var esa vk{ksfir vkns'k dk leFkZu djrs gq, vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶18

05eSaus mi;qZDr ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ij fopkj fd;kA bl U;k;ky; us fnukad 06-08-2020 dks fuEufyf[kr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k %&

¶19

"Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for time to file affidavit of respondent No.1 in relation to the document filed by learned counsel for the appellant at page 47, which pertains to the written partition dated 28.01.1996, whereby, certain properties have been conferred on respondent No.1 by his father – Kundan Mal."

¶20

06mDr vkns'k dh ikyuk esa lEirjkt us fnukad 03-08-2021 dks 'kiFk i= izLrqr fd;k] ftlds iSjk la[;k 04 ls 07 esa mlus ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd %&

¶21

"4.That in this connection the Appellant has placed two unregistered documents dated

¶22

(4 of 8)

¶23

[CMA-737/2020]

¶24

29.01.1996 stating that the same are in the nature of memo of settlement/instrument recording partition undertaken by Late Shri Kundan Mal ji during his lifetime. It is alleged that by way of each of the said instruments, division of properties in favour of Deponent & his brother – Respondent No. 1 were recorded, respectively.

¶25

That page number 47 of the instant appeal marks an instrument dated 29.01.1996 purportedly earmarking/dividing properties in favour of Deponent in pursuance of family settlement-cum-partition.

¶26

That in pursuance of Order dated 06.08.2020, passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Deponent herein is required to submit his stand in relation to the said instrument marked/filed at page 47 of the appeal docket.

¶27

That before submitting his position on the said instrument, the deponent herein desires to clarify that indeed a family settlement was arrived in the form of oral understanding during the life time of Late Shri Kundan Mal, however no conclusive & agreeable understanding could be arrived at as regards the Contentious Property. Therefore, the instrument filed at page 47 so also the instrument filed at page 44 per-se cannot affect the un-partitioned status of the Contentious Property viz-a-viz both the Respondent No. 2 and the Deponent herein and least of all by way of unregistered instruments."

¶28

07bl izdkj izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ us vius mDr 'kiFk&i= ds iSjk la[;k 07 esa dqanuey ds thoudky esa ekSf[kd Understanding ds :i esa ikfjokfjd le>kSrk gksuk vafdr fd;k gS] ysfdu lkFk gh ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k gS fd fookfnr laifRr ds laca/k esa Conclusive & Agreeable Understanding ugha gqbZ FkhA izR;FkhZ&oknh us mDr 'kiFk i= esa caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 ls Li"V :i ls budkj ugha fd;k gSA

¶29

(5 of 8) [CMA-737/2020]

¶30

08fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 ¼i"B 44 ls 46½] tks dqanuey vkSj mlds iq= ckcwyky rFkk lEirjkt ds e/; fu"ikfnr gksuk crk;k tkrk gS rFkk mlds }kjk ckcwyky dks pkj laifRr;ka fn;k tkuk vafdr fd;k x;k gSA blh izdkj fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 ¼i"B 47 ls 49½] tks fd dqanuey o mlds iq= ckcwyky o lEirjkt ds e/; fu"ikfnr gksuk crk;k tkrk gS] ml fyf[kr caVokjs ds }kjk lEirjkt dks Hkh pkj laifRr;ka fn;k tkuk izdV gksrk gSA bu laifRr;ksa esa ,d laifRr pkSlhjh j[kh xbZ gS] ftldk blh fy[kr esa mYys[k gSA dqy feykdj nksuksa fy[kr esa caVokjs ds vuqlkj ftu djhc 09 laifRr;ksa dk caVokjk gksuk crk;k tkrk gS] mu 09 laifRr;ksa esa ls dsoy ,d laifRr ¼fookfnr laifRr½ ds ckjs esa i{kdkjksa ds e/; dksbZ Conclusive vkSj Agreeable ikfjokfjd le>kSrk ugha gksuk LokHkkfod izrhr ugha gksrk gSA

¶31

09;ksX; vf/koDrk vihykFkhZx.k ds vuqlkj la;qDr vfoHkkftr lHkh laifRr;ksa ds caVokjs dk nkok gksuk pkfg,A ysfdu gLrxr izdj.k esa i{kdkjksa dh fookfnr laifRr ds vykok vU; Hkh laifRr;ka gSa] ysfdu mu laifRr;ksa ds caVokjs dk dksbZ nkok izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ us izLrqr ugha fd;k gS] cfYd dsoy ek= ,d fookfnr laifRr ds laca/k esa gh caVokjs dk nkok izLrqr fd;k gS] ftlls Hkh i{kdkjksa ds e/; laifRr;ksa ds caVokjs ds rF; dks cy feyrk gSA

¶32

10fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vk{ksfir vkns'k ds iSjk la[;k 08 esa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd caVokjk jftLVMZ nLrkost ugha gS] fof/kor caVokjk ugha gSA nksuksa fyf[kr caVokjs fnukad 29-01-1996 iathd`r vo'; ugha gS] rRi'pkr fnukad 13-04-1998 dks [kkrkcgh esa caVokjs dh izfof"V dh xbZ] ftlesa ;g vafdr gS fd vkil esa equdyk o xSjequdyk dk caVokjk gks pqdk FkkA [kkrk cgh esa vafdr bl caVokjkukek esa lEirjkt ds Hkh gLrk{kj crk, x, gSaA fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 rFkk [kkrkcgh fy[kr fnukafdr

¶33

(6 of 8)

¶34

[CMA-737/2020]

¶35

13-04-1998 esa laifRr;ksa ds foHkktu esa dksbZ varj gks] ,slk ugha crk;k x;k gSA fyf[kr caVokjk fnukad 29-01-1996 vo'; iathc) ugha gS] ysfdu mldh ;knnk'r ds :i esa [kkrkcgh esa caVokjs dh izfof"V ckn esa fnukad 13-04-1998 dks dh xbZ gSA ;knnk'r ds :i esa fnukad 13-04-1998 dks dh xbZ caVokjs dh fy[kki<+h dk jftLVªs'ku gksuk vko';d izrhr ugha gksrk gS] blfy, [kkrkcgh esa caVokjs dh fy[kki<+h dk fof/kor gksus ls budkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

¶36

11bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fu.khZr Civil

¶37

Appeal No. 7764 of 2014 Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors.

¶38

Versus Manjit Kaur & Ors. dh uthj ds iSjk la[;k 16 esa fuEufyf[kr fl)kar izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS %&

¶39

"... (3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary;

¶40

(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 prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information 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 Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; ..."

¶41

"... (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. ...”

¶42

(7 of 8)

¶43

[CMA-737/2020]

¶44

“38. … Assuming, however, that the said document was compulsorily registrable the courts have generally held that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to it would operate as an estoppel by preventing the parties after having taken advantage under the arrangement to resile from the same or try to revoke it. …..”

¶45

"42. … In these circumstances there can be no doubt that even if the family settlement was not registered it would operate as a complete estoppel against Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Respondent No. 1 as also the High Court, therefore, committed substantial error of law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel as spelt out by this Court in so many cases. …”

¶46

(emphasis supplied)

¶47

12bl izdkj [kkrkcgh esa fnukad 13-04-1998 dh xbZ fy[kr] iwoZ esa gq, caVokjs dh ;knnk'r ds :i esa gS] tks fof/kuqlkj iathd`r gksuk visf{kr ugha gSA fnukad 13-04-1998 dks caVokjs ckcr cgh esa dh xbZ izfof"V ls izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ Hkh focaf/kr gSA

¶48

13dqy feykdj mi;qZDr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ us dqy 09 laifRr;ksa ds foHkktu ds i'pkr~ muesa ls ,d laifRr ds foHkktu ds laca/k esa nkok izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks U;k;ksfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA dfFkr caVokjs ds vuqlkj izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ dks tks laifRr;ka@ykHk izkIr g q vk gS] mlds ckjs esa mlus dksbZ fookn ugha fd;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ LoPN gLr U;k;ky; ds le{k vkuk nf"Vxr ugha gksrk gS] blfy, izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ lkfE;d izdfr dk dksbZ vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA vr% vk{ksfir vkns'k vuqfpr] voS/k ,oa euekuk gksus ls vikLr fd, tkus ds ;ksX; gSA

¶49

14ifj.kker% vihykFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k 01] ckM+esj ds }kjk fofo/k

¶50

(8 of 8)

¶51

[CMA-737/2020]

¶52

nhokuh izdj.k la[;k 41@2019 lEirjkt cuke ckcwyky vkfn esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 08-01-2020 dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA 15bl vkns'k dh izfr fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks 'kh?kz izsf"kr gksA

¶53

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶54

196-Rajendra/-

¶55

;g vkns'[email protected]; Hkkjrh; lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 348 (i) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk jkti= la[;k 1] fnuakd 2 tuojh 1999 ,oa jktLFkku jkti= fnukafdr 10-3-1971 ds rgr fgUnh Hkk"kk ds iz;ksx dk s izkf/kd`r fd, tkus ds ifj.kkeLo:i fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fy[kk;k x;kA

Madan Lal v. Sampat Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. Sampat Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Daulat Devi Vs New India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Kamla Devi Vs Vijay Singh

Dharmichand Vs Praveen

Vikram Deora Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Gawra @Gorishankar Vs State of Rajasthan