Delhi District Court
Sunit Pal Singh vs Gurmit Kaur And Ors on 28 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PANKAJ ARORA:
DISTRICT JUDGE-16, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 56/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-018194-2025
1. Gurmit Kaur deceased through LRs
a. Neetu Baweja w/o Tejinder Pal Singh
d/o late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh
R/o D-278, Ground Floor, Phase-1,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
Also at:
8/2, First Floor, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007
2. Gurvinder Pal Singh
S/o Late Sh Narvinder Pal Singh
R/o 8/2 First Floor, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07
...........Counter Claimants
Versus
Sh. Sunit Pal Singh,
S/o S Jaswant Singh
R/o 8/2, Singh Sabha Road,
Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07 ......Non-Counter Claimant
Date of Institution : 31-05-2012
Date of Arguments : 02-12-2025
Date of judgment : 28-01-2026
COUNTER CLAIM FOR DECLARATION OF GIFT DEED
DATED 04-05-2011 AS NULL AND VOID
JUDGMENT
1. The Counter Claimant has filed the present counter claim along with written statement to suit bearing CSDJ no. 18866/16 for declaration of Gift Deed dated 04-05-2011 as null Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 1/15 PANKAJ Digitally signed by PANKAJ ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.01.28 16:07:15 +0530 and void. The case of the Counter claimant is that Smt. Gurmeet Kaur married with Late S. Narvinder Pal Singh in May 1974 and has been residing in property No. 8/2, Block 41, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi since then. After marriage, she and her husband shifted to and exclusively occupied the first floor of the property (hereinafter referred to as the suit property), while the joint family lived in the rest of the premises. A mutual family settlement dated 03.08.1990 was arrived at between the father, the deceased husband, and the plaintiff/ non-counter claimant, under which the first floor of the property was allotted exclusively to Late S. Narvinder Pal Singh. This settlement was duly acted upon, and the deceased and his family enjoyed uninterrupted possession and ownership of the first floor during his lifetime, including making alterations without any objection from the plaintiff or father. After the death of Late S. Narvinder Pal Singh on 11.08.2006, the plaintiff/ non-counter claimant allegedly, in collusion with his father, began harassing the counter claimants and attempted to dispossess them from the first floor. The plaintiff/ non-counter claimant also executed an alleged gift deed dated 04.05.2011 for the entire property, despite having already relinquished rights over the first floor under the 1990 family settlement. The plaintiff/ non-counter claimant is acting dishonestly by excluding the deceased husband of the counter claimant, from his share in the family business and shop at Gokhle Market, and by later selling the second floor and roof rights which was allotted to him under the family settlement without any claim or objection from the counter claimants, thereby affirming the settlement's validity. Due to threats of forcible dispossession, the counter claimants filed a suit for permanent injunction (Suit No. 138/2011), in which the Civil Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 2/15 Court has granted an injunction restraining the plaintiff/ non- counter claimant from dispossessing them, admitting that the first floor is owned, possessed, and occupied by the counter claimants.
2. In response to the counter claim, the plaintiff/ non- counter claimant has denied all the averments made in the counter-claim. It is submitted on behalf of non-counter claimant that the Counter Claimants are not in lawful possession of the suit property and were only allowed to occupy it as licensees by Shri Jaswant Singh. The licence was orally revoked in May 2010, and despite assurances to vacate, the Counter Claimants failed to hand over possession. On this ground alone, the counter claim is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the Counter Claimants are habitual litigants who harass the Plaintiff/ non-counter claimant when asked to vacate and have filed a false and frivolous suit before the Civil Judge, Tis Hazari, which has now become infructuous and deserves dismissal. The Plaintiff/Non-Counter Claimant is the absolute owner of the first floor of the suit property by virtue of a registered Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011 and continues to pay all statutory charges, supported by original electricity bills and other receipts in his possession. It is further submitted on behalf of the non-counter claimant that Shri Jaswant Singh disowned Late Narvinder Pal Singh and the Counter Claimants from his entire estate, including the suit property, in 2004 due to continuous mental and physical harassment. He issued legal notices and published public notices to this effect, copies of which are on record. Despite repeated requests to vacate the licensed premises, the Counter Claimants delayed the matter. After the death of Narvinder Pal Singh in August 2006, further time was granted. In May 2010, the licence Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 3/15 was orally revoked, yet the Counter Claimants failed to vacate. By a registered Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011, Shri Jaswant Singh gifted the first floor of the property, including the licensed premises, to the Plaintiff/Non-Counter Claimant, making him the exclusive owner. The Counter Claimants were aware of this but concealed the fact from the Court. The Counter Claimants unlawfully allowed a third party, Ms Rinki, to trespass and stay in the premises. When asked to vacate in September 2011, they misbehaved, threatened the Plaintiff and Shri Jaswant Singh, and prompted complaints to authorities. A legal notice dated 26.09.2011 terminated the licence and demanded vacant possession and damages of Rs.50,000/- per month. The Counter Claimants refused service of the notice and failed to vacate even after expiry of the notice period, rendering their occupation illegal and making them liable to vacate the premises and pay damages, with no right to induct any third party.
3. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide Order dated 02.01.2017 as under :
i. Whether the counter claimant is entitled for decree of declaration declaring the registered gift deed dated
04.05.2011 as null and void? OCC ii. Whether the suit property has already been partitioned between the parties in terms of family settlement dated 03.08.1990? OCC iii. Whether the family settlement is inadmissible in evidence being unregistered document? ONCC iv. Relief.
During trial, the counter-claimant no. 1 passed away and Ms. Neetu Baweja (daughter of counter claimant no. 1) was impleaded.
Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 4/15
4. It is pertinent to mention here that vide Order dated 19.11.2025, it has been ordered that the evidence led in the main suit (CSDJ No. 18866/16) shall be read in the present counter claim as well. Thus, testimony of DW1 in CSDJ no. 18866/16 shall be read as evidence of counter-claimants in the present counter claim.
5. The counter claimant stood in witness box as DW1 and relied upon the settlement dated 03.08.1990 as Ex. DW-1/A; copy of the sale deed dated 15.02.2011 already Ex. PW-1/D13; copy of sale deed dated 20.04.2007 already Ex. PW-1/D14; Sale deed dated 14.05.1964 already Ex. PW-1/D6; copy of the advance receipt-cum-agreement to sell dated 01.10.2007 as Ex. PW-1/D19; copy of partnership deed dated 03.04.1986 already Ex. PW-1/D1; Copy of complaint by Late Sh. Navinder Pal Singh to SHO, PS Subzi Mandi dated 17.04.2004 already Mark C; copy of complaint to Sub-Registrar dated 17.04.2004 already Mark D; copy of compromise and understanding given by Sh. Sunil Pal on 23.10.2003 already Ex. PW-1/D4; copy of the notice of DCP North dated 08.03.2004 as Ex. DW-1/12; photocopy of death certificate of Late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh as Ex. DW-1/13; photocopy of passport of Smt. Gurmit Kaur as Mark E; copy of residential directory of Block 41, Singh Sabha Road as Ex. DW-1/15; copy of complaint made by Manleen Kaur to DCP North dated 21.04.2012 as Mark F; copy of ration card of Late Sh. Jaswant Singh dated 07.08.1998 as Mark G; photocopy of the marriage certificate of Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh (defendant no. 2) dated 16.10.2010 as Ex. PW-1/18; copy of medical record of Jivodaya Hospital dated 19.11.2011 as Mark H; and copy of complaint of Gurvinder Pal Singh (defendant no. 1) to PS Roop Nagar dated 01.03.2017 as Mark L. He was duly cross-examined Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 5/15 on behalf of the non-counter claimant.
6. The non-counter claimant stood in witness box as PW1 in CSDJ no. 18866/16. He tendered his evidence wherein he reiterated and reaffirmed all the contents made in the plaint. He relied upon the documents i.e. certified copy of Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011 as Ex.PW-1/1; certified copy of Rectification Deed dated 21.08.2014 as Ex. PW-1/1-A; Site Plan as Ex.PW-1/2A and Ex.PW-1/2B; letter dated 30.03.1994 as Ex.PW-1/3 (2 pages); letter dated 05.12.2002 as Ex. PW-1/4; letter dated 08.12.2002 as Ex. PW-1/5; letter dated 02.08.2003 as Ex.PW-1/6; letter dated 13.04.2011 as Ex.PW-1/7; copies of newspapers Rashtriya Sahara and National Herald edition both dated 09.03.2004 as Ex.PW-1/8 (Colly.); letter dated 22.09.2011 as Ex. PW-1/9; Legal Notice dated 26.09.2011 as Ex.PW-1/10; returned envelopes as Ex. PW-1/11 and Ex.PW-1/12 and letter dated 04.12.2011 as Ex. PW-1/13. He was cross-examined by the defendants.
7. Thereafter, Sh. Aasheesh Kumar, Data Entry Operator from the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi was examined as PW2 on behalf of non-counter claimant herein in CSDJ no. 18866/16. He brought the summoned record i.e., Gift Deed dated 04.05.2011 executed by Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhatia in favour of Sunit Pal Singh registered as document no.3298, book no.1, Volume no. 3798 on pages 33 to 38 registered on 11.05.2011, Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi which was already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. He also brought the rectification deed dated 21.08.2014 executed by Sh. Jaswant Singh Bhatia in favour of Sunit Pal Singh registered as document no.7660, book no.1, volume no. 5454 on pages 54 to 56 registered on 26.08.2014, Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi which was already Ex.PW1/A. Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 6/15
8. This Court has heard the arguments simultaneously in the present counter claim and CSDJ no. 18866/16 and perused the record and written submissions.
9. The issue wise findings of this court are as under:
Issue no.1 Whether the counter claimants are entitled for decree of declaration declaring the registered gift deed dated 04.05.2011 as null and void? OCC Issue no. 2: Whether the suit property has already been partitioned between the parties in terms of family settlement dated 03.08.1990? OCC Both these issues are taken up together as they are inter-connected. The onus to prove these issues is upon the Counter claimants. It is pertinent to note that the Gift Deed dated 04-05-2011 and subsequent rectification dated 21-08-2014 are registered documents. It is well settled that there exist presumption about the validity and genuineness of an registered document. The burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the counter-claimant herein. Legally permissible grounds on which execution of registered documents can be challenged are fraud, coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, mistake of fact or law and defect in title of executant of registered document.
Coercion is defined in Sections 15 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, which reads as under;
"15. "Coercion" defined "Coercion" is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into an agreement.
Explanation: It is immaterial whether the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is or is not in force in the place where the coercion is employed.
Undue influence is defined in Sections 16 of The Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 7/15 Indian Contract Act, 1872, which reads as under;
16. "Undue influence" defined (1) A contract is said to be induced by "undue influence" where the relations subsisting between the parties are such that one of the parties is in a position to dominate the will of the other and uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing principle, a person is deemed to be in a position to dominate the will of another-
(a) where he holds a real or apparent authority over the other, or where he stands in a fiduciary relation to the other; or
(b) where he makes a contract with a person whose mental capacity is temporarily or permanently affected by reason of age, illness, or mental or bodily distress.
(3) Where a person who is in a position to dominate the will of another, enters into a contract with him, and the transaction appears, on the face of it or on the evidence adduced, to be unconscionable, the burden of proving that such contract was not induced by undue influence shall lie upon the person in a position to dominate the will of the other.
Nothing in this sub-section shall affect the provisions of section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872).
Fraud is defined in Sections 17 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, which reads as under;
17. "Fraud" defined "Fraud" means and includes any of the following acts committed by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract:-
(1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
(2) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
(3) a promise made without any intention of performing it; (4) any other act fitted to deceive;
(5) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent.
Misrepresentation is defined in Sections 18 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872, which reads as under;
18. "Misrepresentation" defined "Misrepresentation" means and includes-
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage to the person committing it, or any one claiming under him; by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 8/15 (3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement.
Sections 23 of The Indian Contract Act, 1872 reads as under:-
23. What considerations and objects are lawful and what not The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless-
it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.
In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void."
10. It appears from the counter claim that the counter claimants have challenged the validity and genuineness of Gift Deed dated 04-05-2011 executed by Sh. Jaswant Singh (father of non-counter claimant and grandfather of counter claimant) in favour of non-counter claimant on the ground that a family settlement took place between S. Jaswant Singh and his two sons i.e. the non-counter claimant and Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh (father of counter claimants) on 03-08-1990. As per the said settlement, the first floor/ middle part of property bearing no. 8/2, First Floor, Singh Sabha Road, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-07 was given to late Sh. Narvinder Pal Singh. Thus, by virtue of Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act, the burden to prove the existence of family settlement dated 03-08-1990 is upon the counter claimants. The counter claimants have placed on record only the photocopy of the said family settlement, which along with its true translation was exhibited as Ex. DW1/A. Neither in the written statement filed in CSDJ no. 18866/16 nor in the present counter claim, it is stated as to where the family settlement dated 03-08-1990 is lying. During the pendency of the trial, one application u/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act was moved on behalf of the counter-
Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 9/15 claimants, which was allowed vide order dated 25-09-2024 with the observation that it is a settled position of law that proving of documents through secondary evidence requires fulfilling of certain essential conditions which are mentioned in Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act and same can be proved directly on record. Thereafter, the said document will be read as per law. Thus, it was incumbent upon the counter claimants to prove the conditions laid down in Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act and only then the family settlement dated 03-08-1990 shall be read as per law.
Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows:
"65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given--
Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases:-
(a) when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power-
of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not produce it;
(b) when the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
(c) when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time; (d) when the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
(e) when the original is a public document within the meaning of section 74;
(f) when the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in [India], to be given in evidence;
(g) when the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in court and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents of the document is admissible.
In case (b), the written admission is admissible. In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of document, but no other kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.
In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents."
Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 10/15
11. It is only after the commencement of trial and subsequent to the recording of examination in chief of non- counter claimant Sh. Sunit Pal Singh (who was examined as PW1 in CSDJ no. 18866/16) the defendant therein/ counter claimant herein had served a notice u/O. 12 Rule 8 Ex. PW1/D3 upon the plaintiff therein / non-counter claimant herein, calling upon the plaintiff therein / non-counter claimant herein to produce certain documents which includes the original family settlement dated 03.08.1990. During cross-examination dated 25.07.2018, a question was asked from the plaintiff regarding receipt of notice u/Sec.12 Rule 8 CPC (u/O.12 Rule 8 CPC), the plaintiff has admitted having receiving the said notice Ex.PW1/D3 and added that the same was duly replied by him. Thereafter, no further question pertaining to the said notice u/O. 12 Rule 8 CPC or in reply thereto was asked from the plaintiff in his cross-examination. In the said reply, the plaintiff therein / non-counter claimant herein has categorically denied execution of said family settlement and stated that the counter claimants have forged the said documents and placed a photocopy thereof in the present suit. No evidence has been led by the counter- claimants to show that the original of family settlement dated 03/08/1990 is in possession or power of non-counter claimant. It is claimed in the counter claimants that the non-counter claimant has duly acted upon the family settlement dated 03-08-1990 and has sold his share above the first floor of suit property by executing and registering the sale deed dated 15-02-2011 (Ex. PW1/D-13). Perusal of registered sale deed Ex. PW1/D-13 reveals that the non-counter claimant has sold third floor with roof right of property bearing no. 8/2, Singh Sabha Road, Sabzi Mandi, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 to one Mr. Praveen Ahuja Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 11/15 by claiming his ownership on the basis of one registered sale deed dated 20-04-2007 executed by his father Mr. Jaswant Singh Bhatia in his favour and not on the basis of family settlement dated 03-08-1990. There is no reference of family settlement dated 03-08-1990 in registered sale deed Ex. PW1/D-13. Thus, the counter-claimants have failed to prove the fact that the non- counter claimant has ever acted upon family settlement dated 03- 08-1990.
12. With regard to the evidentiary value of registered documents, recently it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal no. 6640/2010 in case titled Hemlata (D) by LRs, Vs. TukaRam (D) by LRs as follows:-
"31. It is a settled position of law that a registered Sale Deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham". Adopting the principles enunciated in Prem Singh and Ors. vs. Birbal and Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 353 1, Jamila Begum (Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) Through Lrs. and Anr., (2019) 2 SCC 727 2, and Rattan Singh and Ors. v. Nirmal Gill & Ors., (2021) 15 SCC 300 3, this Court "27. There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In the instant case, Respondent 1 has not been able to rebut the said presumption......"
"16. Sale deed dated 21-12-1970 in favour of Jamila Begum is a registered document and the registration of the sale deed reinforces valid execution of the sale deed. A registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. It is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the transaction is not valid in law......"
" 33. To appreciate the findings arrived at by the courts below, we must first see on whom the onus of proof lies. The record reveals that the disputed documents are registered. We are, therefore, guided by the settled legal principle that a document is presumed to be genuine if the same is registered......" reiterates that the burden of proof to displace this presumption rests heavily upon the challenger. Such a challenge can only be Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 12/15 sustained if the party provides material particulars and cogent evidence to demonstrate that the Deed was never intended to operate as a bona fide transfer of title.
32. The grounds typically accepted to challenge a registered Deed at the instance of the vendee/executant are fraud or want of capacity in any party or mistake of fact or fundamental illegality like where the Deed was executed under deceit or sold by a fraudster who did not own the land or where the Deed was executed without consideration, namely, if no money or value was actually exchanged despite recitals in the Deeds or where there was coercion or intimidation like where the seller was forced to sign without free consent.
33. While the aforementioned grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive, this Court must caution against the growing tendency to challenge registered instruments 'at the drop of a hat'. If the sanctity of registered documents is diluted, it would erode public confidence in property transactions and jeopardize the security of titles. In a society governed by the Rule of Law, registered documents must inspire certainty; they cannot be rendered precarious by frivolous litigation.
PLEADING STANDARDS AND THE RULE AGAINST CLEVER DRAFTING
34. The person alleging that a registered Deed is a sham must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. This Court is of the view that the test akin to a test under Order VI Rule 4 CPC is applicable to such a pleading and clever drafting creating illusion of cause of action would not be permitted and a clear right to sue would have to be shown in the plaint.
35. As pointed out by this Court in I.T.C. Limited vs. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 70, the ritual of repeating a word like 'fraud' or creation of an illusion in the plaint can certainly be unraveled and exposed by the Court at the nascent stage of litigation without waiting for a full trial. Mere suspicion or nebulous averments without material particulars would not be sufficient to dislodge the presumption under Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."
13. No independent evidence has been led by the counter claimants to show the existence of family settlement dated 03- 08-1990. As such, in the opinion of this court, the counter claimants have failed to prove the fact that Sardar Jaswant Singh Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 13/15 has no right, title or interest in the suit property prior to the execution of gift deed dated 04-05-2011 in favour of non-counter claimant by virtue of family settlement dated 03-08-1990. The counter-claimants have failed to rebut the presumption of validity and genuineness that exists in favour of registered documents. Accordingly, issue nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of non-counter claimant and against the counter claimants.
14. Issue no.3: Whether the family settlement is inadmissible in evidence being unregistered document? ONCC The onus to prove this issue is upon the non-Counter claimants. Admittedly, the photocopy of family settlement dated 03-08-1990 is an unregistered document. As discussed in the preceding para, the counter-claimants have failed to prove the existence of the said family settlement. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that any instrument which itself creates, declares, or extinguishes rights in immovable property requires compulsory registration. In Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119, the Court clarified that while a mere memorandum recording a past oral family arrangement already agreed upon and acted upon does not require registration, a document that itself effects a division or declaration of rights must be registered. This principle was reaffirmed in Roshan Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors. 2018) 14 SCC 814, wherein it was held as follows:-
"Two propositions must therefore flow: (1) A partition may be effected orally; but if it is subsequently reduced into a form of a document and that document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. Secondary evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (2) Partition lists which are mere records of a previously completed partition between the parties, will be Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 14/15 admitted in evidence even though they are unregistered, to prove the fact of partition."
15. Thus, it is clear that the family settlement which has been reduced into writing and not merely a recital of what has already taken place, is required to be compulsorily registered in accordance with Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and in view of Section 49 of the said Act, such unregistered document cannot be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. Accordingly, issue no. 3 is decided in favour of non-counter claimant and against counter claimants.
16. In view of the findings of this court in issue no. 1 to 3, the counter claim filed by the counter claimants is hereby dismissed. The counter claim stands disposed of. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court PANKAJ Digitally signed by
PANKAJ ARORA
on 28-01-2026 ARORA 16:07:31 +0530
Date: 2026.01.28
(PANKAJ ARORA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-16/ CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI/28-01-2026
Suit No. 56/2025 Gurmit Kaur & Anr. Vs. Sunit Pal Singh Page no. 15/15