Whether unregistered family settlement will operate as estoppel?

However, as observed by this Court in the case of Kale (Supra) that such a family settlement, though not registered, would operate as a complete estoppel against the parties to such a family settlement. In the aforesaid decision, this Court considered its earlier decision in the case of S. Shanmugam Pillai and Ors. v. K. Shanmugam Pillai and Ors. MANU/SC/0398/1972 : (1973) 2 SCC 312 in which it was observed as under:

13. Equitable, principles such as estoppel, election, family settlement, etc. are not mere technical Rules of evidence. They have an important purpose to serve in the administration of justice. The ultimate aim of the law is to secure justice. In the recent times in order to render justice between the parties, courts have been liberally relying on those principles. We would hesitate to narrow down their scope.

9.5 As held by this Court in the case of Subraya M.N. (Supra) even without registration a written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 784 of 2010

Decided On: 01.05.2019

 Thulasidhara  Vs. Narayanappa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: (2019)6SCC 409

Print Page

Whether unregistered family settlement is admissible in evidence?

 It is required to be noted that the deed dated
23.04.1971, under which the suit property had gone /devolved in
favour of the Krishnappa, was reduced in writing before the
Panchayat and Panchas, and the same was signed by the village
people/panchayat people and all the members of the family
including even the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff disputed that
the partition was not reduced in writing in the form of document
Exhibit D4, on considering the entire evidence on record and
even the deposition of plaintiff (crossexamination),
he has
specifically admitted that the oral partition had taken place in the
year 1971. He has also admitted that he has got the share which
tellies with the document dated 23.04.1971 (Exhibit D4).
Execution of the document/ Partition Deed/ Palupatta dated
23.04.1971 has been established and proved by examining
different witnesses. The High Court has refused to look into the
said document and/or consider document dated 23.04.1971
(Exhibit D4) solely on the ground that it requires registration and
therefore as it is unregistered, the same cannot be looked into.
However, as observed by this Court in the case of Kale (Supra)
that such a family settlement, though not registered, would
operate as a complete estoppel against the parties to such a

family settlement. In the aforesaid decision, this Court
considered its earlier decision in the case of S. Shanmugam Pillai
and Others v. K. Shanmugam Pillai and Others (1973) 2 SCC 312
in which it was observed as under:
“13. Equitable, principles such as estoppel,
election, family settlement, etc. are not mere
technical rules of evidence. They have an
important purpose to serve in the administration
of justice. The ultimate aim of the law is to
secure justice. In the recent times in order to
render justice between the parties, courts have
been liberally relying on those principles. We
would hesitate to narrow down their scope.
As observed by this Court in T.V.R. Subbu
Chetty’s Family Charities case, that if a person
having full knowledge of his right as a possible
reversioner enters into a transaction which
settles his claim as well as the claim of the
opponents at the relevant time, he cannot be
permitted to go back on that agreement when
reversion actually falls open.”
9.5 As held by this Court in the case of Subraya M.N.
(Supra) even without registration a written document of family
settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative
evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and
conduct of the parties. In the present case, as observed
hereinabove, even the plaintiff has also categorically admitted
that the oral partition had taken place on 23.04.1971 and he also

admitted that 3 to 4 punchayat people were also present.
However, according to him, the same was not reduced in writing.
Therefore, even accepting the case of plaintiff that there was an
oral partition on 23.04.1971, the document Exhibit D4 dated
23.04.1971, to which he is also the signatory and all other family
members are signatory, can be said to be a list of properties
partitioned. Everybody got right/share as per the oral
partition/partition. Therefore, the same even can be used as
corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made
thereunder and conduct of the parties. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the High Court has committed a
grave/manifest error in not looking into and/or not considering
the document Exhibit D4 dated 23.04.1971.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2010

Thulasidhara  Vs Narayanappa 

M.R. SHAH, J.
Dated:MAY 1, 2019.

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence in case of unregistered family settlement?

 Even though recitals in the Ex.D22 is to the effect of
relinquishment of right in items No.1 and 2, Ex.D22 could be taken
as family arrangements/settlements. There is no provision of law
requiring family settlements to be reduced to writing and

registered, though when reduced to writing the question of
registration may arise. Binding family arrangements dealing with
immovable property worth more than rupees hundred can be made
orally and when so made, no question of registration arises. If,
however, it is reduced to the form of writing with the purpose that
the terms should be evidenced by it, it required registration and
without registration it is inadmissible; but the said family
arrangement can be used as corroborative piece of evidence for
showing or explaining the conduct of the parties.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5805 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.27268 of 2008
SUBRAYA M.N. 
Versus
VITTALA M.N. & ORS
Citation:(2016) 8 SCC705

Print Page

Whether unregistered family arrangement will prevail over will?

 Then again, it is settled law that merely because a bequest has been made, it will not vest the beneficiary with title when the title of the testator itself is in doubt or under challenge. The will dated 25th September, 2003 does not mention that Mrs. Shamie Singh is the owner of the entire Shanti Niketan property nor it is mentioned in the said will that due to tax-planning reasons certain documents had been executed to show otherwise. The will has also been categorically disputed by the plaintiff and by the defendant No.2. In the course of hearing, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 that at the time of the filing of the plaint the plaintiff did not have the alleged will dated 25.09.2003. The said alleged will was set up as a defence in the written statement filed by the defendant No.1, but a copy of the same was not filed with the written statement but subsequently with an application, and therefore, the argument of the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff should have challenged the said will in the plaint is wholly misconceived. It would, in these circumstances, in my opinion, be too far fetched to say that the plaintiff should have challenged the will in the plaint, when the alleged will was not furnished by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. Further, assuming that the alleged will dated 25.09.2003 is held to be genuine, the question still remains at large as to whether late Mrs. Shamie Singh could have bequeathed more than what she owned.

61. Significantly also, the fact that there was a family arrangement is not disputed by the defendant No.1. All that the defendant No.1 states is that the said family arrangement was an ingenious tool devised by the family to save tax and nothing more. This certainly, to my mind, will be a matter to be decided after the parties have marshalled their respective evidence. More so, as the defendant No.1 in his written statement has not denied that a joint account was opened by the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff in which the rent from the front portion of the house was being deposited, and from which joint account the plaintiff, from time to time, "borrowed" money during the short intervals when the plaintiff came to India. This, in my view, further lends credence to the case of the plaintiff that the family arrangement was in fact acted upon.

62. Adverting next to the plea of the learned senior counsel for the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff is not in settled possession of the property as alleged by her. The said plea, in my opinion, cannot be countenanced at this stage in view of the fact that in accordance with law, the possession of a co-owner is deemed to be the possession of all the remaining co-owners. Thus viewed, the plaintiff was always in legal possession of the Shanti Niketan property and her possession was secured by her parents during her absence from India and while she was living with her husband, who was posted abroad. It would be too dangerous a proposition to hold that an owner/co-owner must be said to be out of possession only because the said owner/co-owner was not in actual physical possession at all times.

Delhi High Court

Smt.Gita Abhyankar vs Sh.Vikram Abhyankar & Ors. on 7 April, 2010

Author: Reva Khetrapal

Print Page