Kale & others vs deputy director of consolidation … on 21 january,1976

Nishita Mehta a student at Kirit P Mehta School of Law,3rd Semester, an intern under

Legal Vidhiya

Kale & others vs deputy director of consolidation … on 21 january,1976

Case Name	Kale & others vs deputy director of consolidation
EquivalentCitation	1976 AIR 807, 1976 SCC (3) 119
Date OfJudgement	21/01/1976
Case Type	Special Leave Appeal
Petitioner	KALE & OTHERS
Respondents	DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ORS
Bench	FAZAL ALI, SYED MURTAZA KRISHNA IYER, V.R. SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
Statutes Referred	Family arrangement-Its object and purpose-Principle governing-if should be registered-Oral arrangement-If permitted-If would operate as an estoppel Registration Act. s. 17(1)(b)-Family arrangement if should be compulsorily registered.

Facts

• This is an appeal by special leave against the judgement of the Allahabad High Court dated 17 May 1966, which dismissed the appellants’ appeal against the decision of a single judge of the High Court to reject their writ petition. 
• The appellant filed with the High Court a request for a certificate granting permission to appeal to this court, which was denied by order of the High Court dated August 1967.
• The last propitiator, Lachman, was the tenant and tenure holder of the property in question, which is 19.73 acres in Khatas Nos. 5 & 90 and 19.4 acres in Nos. 53 & 204. Lachman died in 1948, leaving three daughters, Musamat Tikia, Har Pyari, and Ram Pyari. Musamat Tikia’s son, Kale.
• After Lachman’s death, his two unmarried daughters Har Pyari and Ram Pyari and his married daughter’s son Kale were the family. 
• Only unmarried daughters inherit the property under the parties’ U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. In 1949, the village’s Panchayat Adalat was asked to resolve a dispute between Prem Pal, Lachman’s nephew, and the appellant Kale over the property’s succession. Har Pyari and Ram Pyari appear to have been parties to that dispute, and the Panchayat Adalat after local inquiries found that Har Pyari had lost her right in the estate and that Ram Pyari was an heir as long as she was not married, but after her marriage, the legal heir to Lachman’s property would be the Kale. 
• The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, applied to tenure holders in 1952. On October 10, 1954, Act 20 of 1954 replaced “unmarried daughter” with “daughter” in the list of heirs.
• The appellant in this Court and the High Court Ram Pyari respondent No. S was married on February 25, 1955, and the appellant filed a petition before the Naib Tahsildar, Hasanpur, to expunge respondents 4 and 5 from the disputed Khatas because both daughters had married and lost interest in the property. 
• It was contended that as the appellant was the sole heir to Lachman’s estate under s. 3 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, he alone should be mutated. By decision dated December S, 1955, the Naib Tahsildar, Hasaknpur, deleted respondents 4 & 5 from the Khatas in issue and substituted the appellant Kale. On January 11, 1956, respondents 4 and 5, Musamat Har Pyari and Ram Pyari, daughters of Lachman, applied to the Naib Tahsildar to overturn his December 5, 1955 decree, which had been enacted without their knowledge. While this application of respondents 4 & 5 was pending adjudication, the Revenue Court was told that parties were discussing a compromise, which resulted in

Arguments 

Arguments by the Petitioner 

• Kale objected to amending the records for the Khatas before the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
• Due to the complexity of the issue, the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in an order dated May 7, 1964, submitted it to the Consolidation Officer.
• By his order dated July 27, 1964, the consolidation officer to whom the dispute was referred, framed a number of issues. After the case was tried, he substituted the names of Musamat Tikia and removed the name of the appellant Kale from Khatas
•  We could also note the Consolidation officer’s denial that Appellant Kale was Lachman’s grandchild.
• The consolidation officer emphasised that it was never contested that the appellant Kale was the grandson of Lachman because he was the son of his daughter Musamat Tikia both before the Panchayat Adalat and in the mutation petition that was submitted to the Naib Tahsildar
• Following that, the appellant and respondents filed an appeal with the Settlement Officer, who, by order dated November 28, 1964, reinstated the mutation made by the Naib Tahsildar based on the compromise, wherein the appellant was mutated in regard to Khatas. 
• He first contended that the Courts  have not given effect to the family arrangement reached between the parties in 1956 resulting in the mutation in 1957 are not legally viable.
•  The High Court wrongly rejected the settlement because it was not registered. 
• It was argued that an oral family arrangement had already taken place and that the Naib Tahsildar’s application was merely for the Court’s information to change the parties’ names in accordance with the compromise, so there was no need to register the compromise. 
• Second, even if the compromise was unregistered, it would undoubtedly operate as a clear estoppel against those , who having taken benefit thereunder and having remained in possession of the lands for more than seven years cannot be allowed to revoke the compromise.

Arguments by the Respondents.

The following arguments were made before us by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel representing the respondents: 

• That the appellants never claimed to have made any oral family arrangements; 
• That the family arrangement upon which the appellants relied was not genuine and was fraudulent as the consent was obtained by fraud or’ undue influence; 
• That the appellants themselves gave their full approval to the family arrangement in the case which they made out before the Revenue Court.
•  The appellants failed to establish the familial arrangement as a fact, at the very least; 208
• That the doctrine of estoppel would not apply because the family arrangement is required to be registered and there can be no estoppel against the statute; 
• That the Revenue Courts’ findings are essentially findings of fact, and that this Court would not intervene unless there was a clear legal error that was evident from the record.

Judgement 

A family settlement or arrangement brings harmony and goodwill to a family descended from a common ancestor or close relative by resolving their conflicting claims or disputed titles. Even though they weren’t meant to be compromises, family arrangements are regulated by a unique equity and will be upheld if made honestly. Instead, they came from all parties misinterpreting their rights or the conditions that influence them.

The agreement protects the family against protracted legal challenges or continuous disagreements that weaken family bonds and promote anger and animosity among its various members. It promotes social justice by redistributing resources. Thus, family is vast. It’s not restricted to property owners.

Courts favour families. Ignore technical or irrelevant difficulties. Estoppel prevents case reopening.

Families can make arrangements orally without registering. Registration is only needed if the family arrangement is written. The terms and recitals of a family arrangement created pursuant to the agreement should be distinguished from a simple memorandum prepared afterward for the record or for the court to make required adjustments. The memorandum does not issue or renounce real property rights, hence it does not contravene Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and does not need to be registered.

Thus, a document summarising the agreement did not need to be registered.

Thus, a memorandum of an earlier family arrangement filed with the court for name change information does not need to be registered and can be used as evidence of the arrangement. It is definitive and enforceable.

“Even if a family arrangement that needed to be registered wasn’t, it would still function as a full estoppel against the parties who benefited.”To permanently resolve any disputes, we’ll consider the parties’ family arrangements before discussing their claims. A family settlement or arrangement brings harmony and goodwill to a family descended from a common ancestor or close relative by resolving their conflicting claims or disputed titles.

If constructed honestly, family arrangements are governed by a unique equity that applies only to them. Kerr’s essential findings about the family structure on page 364 of his valuable work Kerr on Fraud can be described as follows:

Family compromises differ from stranger compromises. Family agreements are regulated by a unique equity and will be honoured if formed honestly, even if they were not intended to be a compromise. Instead, all parties made mistakes concerning their rights and the conditions that influence them.

A family arrangement is an agreement between family members to benefit the family by compromising disputed or questionable rights, protecting family assets, preserving peace and security, preventing litigation, or preserving honour.

The agreement is usually included in a “family arrangement” deed. Long-term dealings may imply the agreement.

Family ties follow different standards than stranger contacts. When determining the rights of parties under family arrangements or claims to disturb such arrangements, the court takes the broadest possible view and considers factors that would not be considered in transactions between non-family members. Certain situations invalidate such transactions between strangers, but familial commitments are not.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court outlined the fundamental characteristics of family arrangements, including the requirement that oral agreements need not be registered, in the seminal case Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. In regards to written family agreements, the Supreme Court made a distinction between memoranda that are only for recording or amending reasons and papers that embody the contents of a family agreement, holding that the former does not require registration. This idea is reiterated in the current judgement. In a different instance, the Supreme Court likewise decided that regardless of registration, a written record of a family settlement or arrangement might be used to support the agreement and the behaviour of the parties.

Family settlements are frequently used by relatives to settle disputed titles or competing claims. It is accepted practices that these agreements should be governed by a unique contract that, if formed honestly, should be upheld. This idea is strengthened by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the current case. 

Family settlements have historically been a helpful tool for resolving family conflicts and inheritance planning. Family settlement agreements should be properly documented in order to accomplish these goals and prevent litigation over the legality of family settlements. To ascertain if the document in question has to be registered, a thorough examination of the agreement’s terms and conditions is required.

written by NISHITA MEHTA intern under legal vidhiya.