Unregistered family settlements, if acted upon by the parties, are admissible and enforceable as evidence of arrangement—even if not registered under the Registration Act, 1908—as long as they do not constitute partition, relinquishment, or transfer of title. This judgment by the Chhattisgarh High Court upholds Supreme Court precedent and has binding effect within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FA/483/2017 of Ganesh Chauhan Vs Naresh Chauhan |
| CNR | CGHC010005732017 |
| Date of Registration | 03-11-2017 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil – Property law, Evidence, Family Settlement |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that an unregistered family arrangement (consent deed) signed by all relevant parties and acted upon is admissible in evidence and enforceable for sharing rental income from joint family property. Such documents do not require registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, so long as they are not instruments of partition, relinquishment, or transfer, but rather mere arrangements for management/enjoyment of property. Parties benefiting from such arrangements are estopped from disputing them later, following the Supreme Court’s rulings in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others. The trial court’s reliance on the family settlement was correct, and applications to introduce new evidence or claim rent arrears failed for lack of specific proof. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court evaluated whether the document was a partition/relinquishment (requiring registration) or a family arrangement (not requiring registration), citing Supreme Court precedents prioritizing substance over form and the legal effect of parties having acted upon such documents; estoppel applies to those who have benefited from the arrangement. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he is entitled to 1/4 share in rent from certain properties leased in the names of his brothers but forming joint family property, relying on an unregistered consent deed executed between four brothers and their father. Defendants denied binding nature of the deed, arguing it was unregistered and not properly stamped. Trial court decreed 1/4 rent share to the plaintiff but denied claim for rent arrears due to lack of specific proof. Both sides appealed: defendants on document admissibility, plaintiff on arrears rejection. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate civil courts within Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar factual situations; Supreme Court (if revisited) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms and applies the principle that unregistered family arrangements (consent deeds) relating to joint family property are admissible as evidence if not embodying partition, relinquishment, or transfer.
- Registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, is not required for mere family arrangements—distinguishing from partition or relinquishment deeds.
- Parties who have acted upon and benefited from such an arrangement are estopped from challenging its validity at a later stage.
- Applications for additional evidence must strictly satisfy the criteria under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC; inadmissible if based on mere inadvertence or lack of due diligence.
- Mere absence of tenants or subsequent vacating does not defeat accrued rights from a decree based on the arrangement.
- Plaintiffs claiming rent arrears must provide specific evidence of rent received or unpaid—general allegations are insufficient.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court analyzed whether the consent deed (Ex.P-1) was a partition or a family arrangement. It concluded, relying on its contents and conduct of parties, that it was a family arrangement, not a partition or title transfer.
- Cited Supreme Court precedents (Kale & Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Narendra Kante v. Anuradha Kante, Thulasidhara v. Narayanppa) holding that unregistered family arrangements do not require registration and create estoppel when acted upon.
- Distinction made between instruments declaring partition (which require registration) and arrangements operating for peaceful family settlement (which do not).
- Examined evidence that all parties had signed and acted on the arrangement for years before dispute arose; no party had challenged the document’s validity earlier; parties benefitted per the arrangement.
- Defendants’ argument that Ex.P-1 was inadmissible for want of registration was rejected, as the document neither purported to partition nor transfer title, but set out sharing of usufruct.
- Application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence (purportedly to show tenants had vacated) was found not to meet statutory tests—due diligence and necessity not demonstrated.
- Plaintiff’s claim for specific rent arrears was rejected due to lack of clear pleadings and proof as to which tenant owed what quantum to whom.
- Concluded by affirming trial court’s decree for 1/4 rent share, denying claim for arrears.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Defendants No. 1-3, in F.A. 403/2017):
- The consent deed (Ex.P-1) is an unregistered document, requiring compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, hence inadmissible.
- Shops and plots were individually allotted, and taxes paid solely by defendants; plaintiff had no separate Patta.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents about necessity of registration for documents altering legal rights.
- All tenants had vacated the property, rendering the decree infructuous; supported by an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence.
Respondent (Plaintiff, in F.A. 403/2017 / Appellant in F.A. 483/2017):
- Ex.P-1 is a family arrangement, not a partition or transfer, and does not require registration.
- Consent deed was acted upon; parties enjoyed benefits according to its terms; hence, defendants are estopped from challenging it.
- Cited Supreme Court authorities supporting enforceability of unregistered family settlements.
- Disputed correctness of application regarding tenants vacating; produced evidence some tenants still in possession and paying rent.
Respondent No. 8 (in F.A. 483/2017):
- Submitted that he had vacated the premises during pendency of the appeal.
Factual Background
The dispute centered around joint family properties leased in the names of four brothers (plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 3), for which an unregistered consent deed was executed in 2002 to share rental income equally. The plaintiff alleged that since June 2012, the other brothers acted contrary to the deed, appropriating rent individually. He sought a declaration of right to 1/4 share, injunctions, and arrears of Rs. 1,04,000/-. Defendants argued the arrangement was unenforceable due to lack of registration and stamping. The trial court decreed 1/4 rent share to plaintiff but denied the arrears claim. Both parties appealed on these respective aspects.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 17(1)(b), Registration Act, 1908: Analyzed as to whether the consent deed required compulsory registration. Court held it’s not required for family arrangements not amounting to partition or transfer.
- Order 41 Rule 27, CPC: The court scrutinized the strict statutory grounds for allowing additional evidence in appellate proceedings, emphasizing due diligence and necessity.
- No constitutional provisions were invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the judgment is by a Single Judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were established in this judgment. Application of existing law under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, was reaffirmed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedents (Kale, Thulasidhara) on family arrangement admissibility were affirmed and applied.