Oral Family Arrangement/Settlement Made Without Any Document Does Not Require Registration: Kerala HC

The Court added that, in such cases, there should be sufficient pleadings to that effect and the said pleadings should be proved by cogent and convincing evidence.

A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “Insofar as a family arrangement or a family settlement is concerned, if it is made orally without there being any document, the said family arrangement does not require registration. But, in order to establish a family arrangement or a family settlement effected orally, there should be sufficient pleadings to that effect and the said pleadings should be proved by cogent and convincing evidence.”

Advocate G.Krishnakumar appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Dileep D Bhat appeared for the respondent.

The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of possession and injunction arising from a property dispute which revolved around a piece of land divided into two portions - A and B. The plaintiff claimed 3 cents of the property, along with the house built on it, while the defendant was allotted the remaining 7 cents along with the family house under a Settlement Deed.

The issue arose when the defendant obstructed a pathway leading to the plaintiff claiming a right of easement by necessity over the pathway.

The trial court concluded that if at all there was an exchange of the properties, that should have been by a registered document as provided under Sections 118 and 54 of the T.P. Act. The appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court.

The defendant argued that an oral family settlement didn't require registration, claiming that the pathway was exchanged for a property as part of a family settlement. The plaintiff refuted the existence of any family settlement and submitted that if an exchange did occur, registration was necessary, as determined by both the trial and appellate courts.

The High Court had to address a substantial question of law arising as to whether a family settlement or family arrangement made orally would require registration.

“Insofar as the family settlement by exchanging plaint C and E schedule properties is concerned, the same is not properly proved and the evidence of the crucial witness DW2 also is not in support of case put forward by the defendant, since the width of the plaint C schedule pathway is only 1.2 meter, not capable of carrying a car, as deposed by DW2,” the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Sandhyavu v. Peter (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/26006)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates G.Krishnakumar and B.S.Suraj Krishna

Respondent: Advocates Dileep D Bhat, Suchithra K.R., Sunil N. Shenoi, Ganesh S. Pai, Girish Gopi and Arun E.A.

Click here to read/download the Judgment