A consent deed/family arrangement, even if unregistered, is admissible in evidence and binds the parties if acted upon, as reaffirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh relying on settled Supreme Court precedent (Kale, Narendra Kante, Thulasidhara). The judgment upholds existing law and serves as binding authority within Chhattisgarh, with persuasive value elsewhere, particularly for property disputes involving unregistered family settlements.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/403/2017 of Naresh Chouhan Vs Ganesh Chouhan |
| CNR | CGHC010196002017 |
| Date of Registration | 29-08-2017 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedent (Kale, Narendra Kante, Thulasidhara) |
| Type of Law | Civil—Property and Succession (Family Arrangement) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | A family arrangement/consent deed, even if unregistered, is admissible in evidence so long as it does not itself partition, assign, or transfer title in property, but merely records a mutually agreed arrangement among family members for management or sharing income of joint property. If the parties have acted upon such an arrangement, they are estopped from denying its validity subsequently. The Court applied and reaffirmed the established principles from Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Narendra Kante, and Thulasidhara. Application for additional evidence at appellate stage requires strict compliance with Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; mere subsequent developments or inadvertence do not qualify. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Family arrangements foster peace and avoid litigation, and when acted upon are binding (estoppel). Distinguishes between registrable instruments (partition, assignment, relinquishment) and mere memoranda/arrangements. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Four brothers, sons of Adalat Chauhan, held various commercial properties in their names that were leased and managed as part of a joint family business. A consent deed (Ex.P-1) was executed in 2002, stating all brothers were entitled to equal share of income regardless of individual title. Plaintiff alleged, from 2012, other brothers (defendants) stopped giving his share of rent, prompting the suit for declaration, injunction, and arrears. Defendants denied binding nature of Ex.P-1, arguing it was unregistered and of no legal effect. Trial court decreed in plaintiff’s favour as to ongoing rent share but denied arrears for lack of specific evidence. Appeals were filed by both sides. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, including those adjudicating family arrangement/property disputes nationwide |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that an unregistered family arrangement/consent deed concerning management/sharing income of joint family property (not amounting to partition or transfer of title) is enforceable and admissible in evidence.
- If parties have mutually acted upon an unregistered family arrangement, they are estopped from subsequently denying its validity or enforceability.
- Purely administrative family arrangements do not require mandatory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, provided no present transfer, assignment or partition of title takes place.
- Additional evidence in appeal (Order 41 Rule 27 CPC) will not be readily allowed: mere subsequent events, inadvertence, or poor legal advice are insufficient grounds.
- For rent arrears or similar monetary claims, specific pleadings and evidence tracing the flow of payments are mandatory—generic assertions or notices will not suffice for relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court analyzed the nature of the consent deed (Ex.P-1) and, drawing from its language and surrounding circumstances, concluded it neither partitioned nor transferred property, but was a family arrangement concerning sharing of rental income.
- It relied on Supreme Court precedents that family arrangements, when not intended to operate as partition or transfer, do not require registration, and are admissible and binding (Kale; Narendra Kante; Thulasidhara).
- The Court found all parties had signed and acted upon the arrangement for years, so were estopped from denying it—citing the doctrine of estoppel articulated by the Supreme Court.
- Distinctions were made between a partition/relinquishment (which must be registered) and a memorandum of family understanding (which does not).
- The High Court reviewed and rejected analogous precedents pressed by defendants, finding them factually or legally distinguishable as they dealt with title/alienation.
- Applications to admit additional evidence at appellate stage were dismissed for failing to satisfy the strict requirements of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, as established by the Supreme Court.
- The trial court’s decree was sustained for ongoing share in rent; the appeal for past rent arrears was rejected due to lack of specific, corroborative evidence on actual amounts due and paid.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Defendants 1-3, Appellants in FA 403/2017)
- The trial court wrongly relied on an unregistered consent deed (Ex.P-1), which was inadmissible and unenforceable per Registration Act Section 17(1)(b).
- The document required compulsory registration since it concerned immovable property.
- All tenants have vacated the premises during appeal, thus the relief has become infructuous; application for additional evidence on this point was moved under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Respondent (Plaintiff)
- The trial court correctly found that Ex.P-1 was a family arrangement, not a partition, and thus did not require registration.
- All parties were real brothers; the property, though in individual names, was acquired and managed as joint family property by their deceased father.
- The arrangement was acted upon by all, so defendants are estopped from denying it.
- Supported by Supreme Court and High Court precedents (Kale, Narendra Kante, Thulasidhara etc.).
- Application for additional evidence (Order 41 Rule 27) is without merit; one tenant (Pramod Kumar Jain) remained and continued to pay rent, disproving appellants’ claims.
- Plaintiff (in cross-appeal) argued for entitlement to arrears of rent of Rs. 1,04,000/-, challenging trial court’s denial.
Respondent No.8 (Tenant, Appellant in FA 483/2017)
- Confirmed vacation of premises during appeal proceedings.
Factual Background
Four brothers, sons of late Adalat Chauhan, acquired leasehold interests in several commercial plots and shops at Nehru Road and Akashganga Industrial Area, Bhilai while still minors; the property was managed as joint family property. In 2002, all brothers signed a consent deed (Ex.P-1), stating equal right to enjoyment of rental proceeds. From 2012, the plaintiff alleged his share was withheld by defendants 1-3, prompting a suit for a declaration of his right, injunction against interference, and claim for rent arrears. Defendants denied the deed’s enforceability, arguing it was unregistered. The trial court decreed in plaintiff’s favour on current/future rent, but dismissed arrears. Appeals were preferred both by the unsuccessful defendants and the plaintiff (as to arrears).
Statutory Analysis
- Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(1)(b): Analyzed to distinguish between documents requiring compulsory registration (partition, relinquishment, transfer) and those which are mere family arrangements reflecting ongoing consensus or sharing of income, which do not require registration.
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC: Discussed and applied strictly. The court reiterated that additional evidence at appellate stage may be admitted only on showing (i) refusal by trial court to admit it; (ii) it was previously unavailable with due diligence; or (iii) appellate court requires it to pronounce judgment. Subsequent developments or inadvertence do not suffice.
- The judgment did not invoke other statutory provisions or constitutional principles.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the judgment represents the sole and unanimous view of the presiding judge.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded in the judgment. The court applied settled procedural law concerning additional evidence in appellate court (Order 41 Rule 27 CPC), but did not introduce novel procedures.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law under Kale and related Supreme Court judgments on family arrangements is faithfully reaffirmed and applied.