This appeal has been filed before the Honorable Supreme Court pursuing to the order passed by the Honorable High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the second appeal is allowing without answering the substantial question of law wherein the property transferred and the document used for transferring the property required registration and other validity formalities. A suit filed by one Harbans Singh against his own brothers with respect the land admeasuring 11 kanals and 17 marlas which comprised combine the Khasra no. 935/1 and Khasra no. 935/2 and all other properties mentioned in details in the schedule. The complainant herein filed a suit under pleading that he is the exclusive owner of his Father’s Property and suit was for declaration against his brothers Sohan Singh and Mohan Singh who were the original defendant no.1 and 2 in the suit filed.
The complainant made a submission that there was a meeting held by the family member for communicating for settlement and under the fair guidance of the respectable family member, the settlement was acknowledged and accepted pursuing to which a complete possession and all the construction on an above-mentioned land decided in his favour, the land which was decided consist of 16 commercial shops, a Samadhi of his wife whose name in the suit filed as stated Gurcharan Kaur and one service station with boundary established by building wall. The complainant filed a submission that the construction in such land was his creation, and erected the possession on the land as acknowledging that he is the owner of the land.
In the year 1970 there raised a dispute among the family, wherein three brothers raised the issue regarding the property and the ownership wherein after the settlement reached among the family members wherein it was decided by the members that the possession and ownership of the land and/any of the construction on such land would remain with the complainant i.e. Harban Singh but the brothers names i.e. Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh was to be included in the list receivers of the revenue, which mentioned that such brother will receives revenue up to 50% of the extent and any person including that of Harban Singh. The plaintiff herein decided to reduce down to writing the above settlement by incorporating the family memorandum with respect to the arrangement regarding the profits, ownership and possession of the properties. The plaintiff has filed suit pleading for declaratory suit declaring the arrangement and ownership of the suit property and also the plaintiff filed one more contention that as the property mentioned in the suit is with the plaintiff for the period of 12 years the ownership right of the complete suit property has transferred to him.
- Whether the land ownership should be transferred to then plaintiff?
- Whether the claims of the brother are valid?
- Whether the judgment passed by the High Court valid?
- Whether the arrangement made under family settlement has any validity in the eye of law?
The Honorable Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the matter above and considering the facts and the precedents submitted established by the Honorable Judges to support the prayers and pleadings of the parties in the matter above states its observation herein that It is important to consider that with regards to the question of the law and facts the learned single judge of the court decided the matter in the respondent’s favour, wherein the appellant has taken remorse that the decision given by the learned Single Judge seems to invalid and the question regarding the law has been not been answered properly filing the suit an appeal was made and the matter was handed over to the larger bench to reach a satisfactorily judgment with proper interpretation to the law attracted.
The larger bench of the High Court was to answer the question with regards to the Article 65 and other provision relating to the Limitation Act if applies, also the matter that was filed before the Court whether bars the matter by way of limitation law. The core issue involved in the above matter was whether the document submitted in the schedule the document required to be registered for transferring the property. The defendant number 4 here is the wife one of the brother among whom the current dispute was raised as the defendant number 1 and 2 died during their lifetime and the father of the defendant also is deceased. The High Court in the above matter has not advert and not even bothered to revisit the fact and its finding wherein in the appellate court various aspects of the matter were covered. The court finds it difficult rely on the judgment by the High Court as it stated that under the power authorized for the second appeal the High Court has not made a proper analysis of the fact and question of law in the matter above keeping in mind under the limitation provided under CPC section 100 for trying the second appeal.
The High Court’s judgment seems like bordering the correct the decision taken by the appellate court in the matter. Even if the matter does not involve or involves any matter in legal positioning if such is settled by the family memorandum which is reduced into writing and has been acknowledged and accepted stands binding on all. In the above matter limiting the scope to necessary argument, it stands on the point the family memorandum established in the above matter is an estoppels to any of the defendants if such prayer is in contrary of the arrangement. The court finds that there exists no hesitation to affirm the judgment of the appellate court.
The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside allowing the appeal filed before this court and all the pleadings made before favouring the decision of the appellate court i.e. the then plaintiff. There shall be no order to cost and all the pending appeal herein stands disposed.
Case No.: CP 7764 of 2020