IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA 5877-2003 Gurdev Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Kartar Singh & Others . . . . Respondents ***** COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) Gurdev Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Kartar Singh & Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 15.10.2025 Pronounced on: 27.10.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Harveen Kaur, Advocate for the Appellant/Pe""oner Mr. Parit Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondents DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The defendant has preferred the present appeal against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, whereby the suit for separate possession by way of par""on filed by the plain"ffs, Kartar Singh and Sardara Singh (respondents herein), was decreed by the Trial Court on 24.01.2003, and the appeal preferred by the defendant (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 19.07.2003. 2. To avoid confusion, the par"es are being referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) 3. The plain"ffs, Kartar Singh and Sardara Singh, along with Bant Singh i.e., father of the defendant, are real brothers, all being sons of Chanan Singh. The plain"ffs claimed that the four proper"es described in the headnote ‘A’ to ‘D’ of the plaint were joint family proper"es, in which they held 2/3rd share (1/3rd each), while the remaining 1/3rd share belonged to the defend- ant’s father, who had since passed away. They also stated that the par"es owned agricultural land, which con"nued to be joint, and applica"on for its par- ""on were already dismissed before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on the grounds of parcel par""on in view of the construc"on having been raised over some of the proper"es. Since the defendant declined their request for an amic- able par""on, the plain"ffs ins"tuted the present suit. 4. In his wri:en statement, the defendant denied the plain"ffs’ claim and disputed the joint nature of the proper"es, except the one men"oned un- der headnote ‘D’. He asserted that the other proper"es were separately owned and possessed. According to him, their grandfather Chanan Singh had already divided the proper"es among his three sons during his life"me through a writ- ing dated 08.03.1975. As per that family arrangement, the property under headnote ‘A’ fell to the share of the defendant’s father, the property under headnote ‘B’ went to Kartar Singh, and the property under headnote ‘C’ was given jointly to Bant Singh and Sardara Singh, while the property under head- note ‘D’ remained with Chanan Singh. Upon Chanan Singh’s death, the plain"ffs and Bant Singh allegedly became owners of the respec"ve por"ons. On this basis, the defendant contended that the par"es were already in separate pos- session of their shares and that the suit was, therefore, not maintainable. 5. A@er framing the necessary issues and examining the evidence, the Trial Court held that the wri"ng dated 08.03.1975 relied upon by the defendant was inadmissible in evidence, as it was an unregistered document. It further found that the alleged par""on was never acted upon and concluded that the suit proper"es con"nued to be joint. Accordingly, the suit for par""on was de- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) creed. The First Appellate Court upheld these findings and dismissed the de- fendant’s appeal. 6.1 Assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant contends that both Courts erred in disreg- arding the wri"ng dated 08.03.1975, which evidenced par""on of the suit prop- er"es effected by Chanan Singh, the father of the plain"ffs & grandfather of the defendant, during his life"me. It is argued that the said wri"ng merely recorded a prior oral par""on and was, therefore, a memorandum of par""on, not re- quiring registra"on. 6.2 Reliance is placed on Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidaon (AIR 1976 SC 807) and Subraya M.N. v. Vi'ala M.N. (AIR 2016 SCW 3236), to con- tend that even a wri:en family se:lement, if executed in pursuance of an earlier oral arrangement, is valid and enforceable though unregistered. 6.3 It is further submi:ed that the oral evidence on record supports the fact that the par"es have been in separate se:led possession of their re- spec"ve shares and have made independent improvements thereon. Accord- ingly, it is urged that the concurrent judgments suffer from legal infirmity and deserve to be set aside, and the suit ought to be dismissed by allowing the present appeal. 7.1 Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents-plain"ffs submits that the concurrent findings are well-reasoned and call for no interference. 7.2 It is argued that the wri"ng dated 08.03.1975 was neither proved in according with law nor admissible in evidence. The Trial Court, by a detailed order dated 02.05.1997, had already held the said document to be inadmissible, and that order was never challenged by the defendant through any appeal or revision, thereby a:aining finality. The First Appellate Court has rightly affirmed that finding. Page 3 of 10 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) 7.3 It is further contended that the alleged par""on was never acted upon and that the suit proper"es con"nue to stand jointly in the names of the par"es in the revenue records. Referring to Sec"on 123 of the Punjab Land Rev- enue Act, learned counsel submits that unless a private par""on is duly reflec- ted in the revenue record, the property must be deemed to remain joint, as no par""on by metes and bounds has taken place. Hence, dismissal of the appeal is sought. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and ex- amined the record. 9. It is undisputed that Chanan Singh had three sons—Kartar Singh and Sardara Singh (the plain"ffs), and Bant Singh (father of the defendant). Upon the demise of Bant Singh, his estate devolved upon the defendant-appel- lant Gurdev Singh. While the plain"ffs claim that the suit proper"es con"nue to be joint and seek par""on, the defendant asserts that a par""on had already taken place under the wri"ng dated 08.03.1975 (Mark A/Annexure P-2). 10. During the trial, the admissibility of this document dated 8.3.1975 was specifically considered, and by a detailed order dated 02.05.1997, the Trial Court held that the document was inadmissible and could not be exhibited in evidence. This order was never challenged by the defendant during the pen- dency of the suit and thus, a:ained finality, as argued by the counsel for re- spondents. The appellant, however, contends that the said order can s"ll be ques"oned at the stage of appeal. 11. Before considering as to whether the document dated 08.03.1975 is admissible or not due to non-registra"on, it will be useful to reproduce the contents of the same. It is in Punjabi script and its English transla"on has been placed on record by the appellant as Annexure P-2, which reads as under: AGREEMENT (WRITING) NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) I, Chanan Singh son of Hira Singh son of Teja Singh is the resident of Sujapur Tehsil Jagraon. That I have three sons namely Bant Singh, Kartar Singh, Sardara Singh. I have separated my three sons during my life "me so that there is no dispute amongst them in future. The land in village Sujapur which is in my name, I will get it transferred in the name of my three sons within 15-20 days but the land abuLng the phirni (Niyain Wale Khet) measuring about 17 Kanal shall remain in my possession during my life"me and will take the yield, the remaining will remain in their possession and they will be the owners. In these fields on the southern side, Bant Singh and in the middle Kartar Singh and on the northern side Sardara Singh will remain in possession. House within abadi measuring about 4 Biswa Katcha alongwith chaubara has been given to Kartar Singh and house within phirni measuring 17 Biswas on the eastern side has been given to Sardara Singh, western side has been given to Bant Singh. The area measuring 5 Biswas purchased from Amar Singh has been given to Bant Singh but Bant Singh and Sardara Singh will be owner in equal shares of house within phirni and out of 5 Biswa. Out of my sons Kartar Singh is unmarried and has no issues. If he get married during his life "me, then his property shall be given to his wife and his child. If he is does not marry and has no children then he will have no right to will/adopted his property in the name of one brother or one of their children. Both the brothers or their children shall be en"tled to his property. If anybody backed to this arrangement shall be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as penalty to the others. This wri"ng is agreed to by my sons. I have got this agreement scribed so that it can be used in future. dated 8.3.75.” 12. The above wri"ng dated 08.03.1975 reveals that it records the arrangement of distribu"on of the proper"es of Chanan Singh among his three sons—Bant Singh, Kartar Singh, and Sardara Singh. The document clearly sets out an inten"on to divide both agricultural land and residen"al houses among the three sons and to confer exclusive possession and ownership of specific por"ons. It also contains opera"onal clauses, for example, it allocates defined parcels to each son and imposes a penalty for breach, showing that it was meant to take effect immediately, not merely record a past division. Hence, it is not a mere memorandum of a past par""on, but an instrument effec"ng NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) par""on, because it purports to create or declare rights in immovable property for the first "me. Consequently, under Sec"on 17(1)(b) of the Registra"on Act, 1908, such an instrument requires compulsory registra"on and so, being unregistered, it cannot be received in evidence to prove par""on or transfer of "tle. 13. In the case of Kale and others (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the principles regarding necessity of registra"on of a family se:lement. It was held as under:- “10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essen"als of a family se:lement in a concre"sed form, the ma:er may be reduced into the form of the following proposi"ons: (1) The family se:lement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of proper"es between the various members of the family. (2) The said se:lement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (3) The family arrangements may be even oral in which case no registra"on is necessary, (4) It is well se:led that registra"on would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into wri"ng. Here also, a dis"nc"on should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared a@er the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for informa"on of the court for making necessary muta"on. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or ex"nguish any rights in immoveable proper"es and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Sec"on 17 (2) (sic) (Sec"on 17 (1) (b) ?) of the Registra"on Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) (5) The members who may be par"es to the family arrangement must have some antecedent "tle, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the par"es to the se:lement. Even if one of the par"es to the se:lement has not "tle but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or "tles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owners, then the antecedent "tle must be assured and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are se:led by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the par"es to the se:lement. 11. 11. The principles indicated above have been clearly enunciated and adroitly adumbrated in a long course of decisions of this Court as also those of the Privy Council and other High Courts.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court has thus clarified in Kale (supra), that registra"on would be necessary, if terms of family se:lement are reduced into wri"ng; and that dis"nc"on was required to be made between a document containing the term and recitals of the family arrangement made under the document; and a mere memorandum prepared a@er the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for the informa"on of the Court for making necessary muta"on and that in such a case, when the memorandum itself does not create or ex"nguish any rights in immoveable property, the same will not be compulsorily registerable. 15. Similarly, in Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and Others Vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar, 2021(4) RCR (Civil) 433, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when document does not purport to, by itself create, declare, assign, ex"nguish or limit right in proper"es and that such a family se:lement document merely records past transac"on, the same does not require compulsory registra"on and that the same is admissible. Similar posi"on NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) is explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjit Kaur and others, 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 393. 16. However, in the present case, wri"ng dated 08.03.1975 created rights for the first "me in favour of the par"es in respect of the shares of the proper"es of Chanan Singh and so the document was required to be compulsorily registered. 17. Besides, in Shiromani and others Vs. Hemkumar and others, AIR 1968 SC 1299, it has been clearly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the document effects par""on of the joint family proper"es of the value of more than ₹100/- by metes and bounds, registra"on is compulsory and in the absence of registra"on, it is inadmissible to prove "tle of any of the co-parceners to any of the property. In the case of Sarima Shan Devi and another Vs. Jagdish Parshad and another, 1986(1) PLR 26, it has been held by this Court that when by virtue of the wri"ng, a person was made the exclusive owner of the house, while he was divested of his rights in all other proper"es, that wri"ng required compulsory registra"on. 18. All the above cited authori"es are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and so, it is held that wri"ng dated 08.03.1975 being unregistered, has rightly been rejected by the courts below by holding it as inadmisible. 19. Apart from the above, it is also significant to note that although the suit for par""on was ins"tuted in December 1995, the revenue record con"nues to show the suit proper"es as joint among the par"es. The Trial Court observed that the jamabandis for the years 1991–92 (Ex.P5 to Ex.P7) and 1996– 97 (Ex.P8 and Ex.P9) s"ll record the proper"es as jointly owned. Furthermore, Shri R.K. Goyal, who prepared the site plans (Ex.P1 to Ex.P4), also found the proper"es to be joint at the "me of his inspec"on. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly concluded that had the alleged par""on been effected and implemented as claimed by the defendant, such change would have been duly NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) reflected in the revenue record. 20. Sec"on 111 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 provides that any joint owner may apply to the Revenue Officer for par""on of his share in the joint land. The subsequent provisions of the Act prescribe the procedure for effec"ng such par""on. In this context, Sec"on 123 of the Act is par"cularly rel- evant, as it deals with the affirma"on of a par""on privately effected. It reads as follows: “123. Affirma=on of par==on privately effected.— In any case in which a par- ""on has been made without the interven"on of a Revenue Officer, any party thereto may apply to a Revenue Officer for an order affirming the par""on.” 21. This provision makes it clear that a private par""on among co- sharers a:ains legal validity only a@er it is affirmed by the competent Revenue Officer. A private par""on of agricultural land becomes effec"ve only when it is brought to the no"ce of the revenue authori"es, sanc"oned by them, and the Khata is accordingly divided. Un"l such sanc"on is obtained, the co-sharers con- "nue to remain joint owners in the same Khata. 22. In the present case, the plain"ffs have not pleaded anywhere that they ever approached the Revenue Officer for sanc"on of muta"on based on the alleged private par""on said to have been effected through the wri"ng dated 08.03.1975. 23. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that the Courts below rightly held the document dated 08.03.1975, relied upon by the defen- dant-appellant, to be inadmissible in evidence for want of registra"on. Suit proper"es have been rightly held to be s"ll joint amongst the par"es and so, suit for par""on has been rightly decreed. 24. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts are based on a proper and reasoned apprecia"on of the evidence on record and, therefore, call for no interference. As such, finding no merit in the present ap- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA 5877-2003 COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) peal, the same is accordingly dismissed. COCP-1623-2006 (O&M) This pe""on filed by pe""oner Gurdev is disposed of, as the same was not pressed at all before this court. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 27.10.2025 Nee ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.10.28 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document