Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.34 seconds)Section 50 in The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954
Section 6 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Dr Suraj Munjal vs Chandan Munjal & Ors. on 3 June, 2022
32. It is settled position of law that the oral partition / settlement
has to be proved like any other fact. The Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Dr Suraj Munjal vs Chandan Munjal & Ors. in
RFA(OS) 5/2022, decided on 3 June, 2022 has discussed the
law related to the plea of oral settlement. It has held as under:
Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
"39. The family settlement or arrangements
between the members of a family have been
recognized as a mechanism to settle their
differences and disputes, conflicted claims or
disputed titles once for all in order to bring peace,
complete harmony and goodwill in the family.
"40. The Supreme Court in Kale and Others Vs.
Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. (1976)
3 SCC 119 observed that the object of such an
arrangement is to protect the family from long
drawn litigation and perpetual strifes which mar
the unity and solidarity of the family and create
hatred and bad blood between various members of
the family. However, the bonafide and propriety of
a family arrangement has to be judged by the
circumstances prevailing at the time when such
settlement was made. The onus of proving the
family settlement lies solely on the person
claiming that a family Agreement existed.
"41.
Gaj. Singh Yadav (Lt. Col.) vs Satish Chander Yadav & Ors. on 17 September, 1999
Gaj Singh Yadav vs. Satish Chander Yadav, 1999
(51) DRJ 240 wherein it was explained that if a
party had a share in the property, enlargement of
such share by relinquishment or gift by the other
defendant would not require registration. It is only
when a right in the property is created for the first
time by a particular document that it would require
registration. Therefore, mischief of Section 49 of
the Registration Act would not fall on an oral
settlement.