R.S.A. No. 3426 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3426 of 2008 Date of decision:6th August, 2009 Rohtas Singh and another ......Appellants Versus Jiwan Singh and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Rajive Bhalla, J The appellants challenge the judgments and decrees dated 16.10.2004 and 26.03.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing their suit and their appeal respectively. The appellants filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land as Shalu Singh has executed a relinquishment deed in their favour relinquishing his 1/3rd share on 1.02.1967. In response to the averments in the plaint, the respondents pleaded that Shalu Singh had no right to execute the relinquishment deed on 1-2- 1967 as the land belonged to Sugra, on the said date. It was further pleaded that even otherwise, the relinquishment deed did R.S.A. No. 3426 of 2008 2 not convey any title for want of registration. Another plea raised was that the respondents did not oppose the mutation of inheritance, sanctioned, in their favour after the death of Sugra, on 22.04.1971. The trial court after considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, dismissed the suit by holding that the relinquishment deed was invalid as on the date of its execution Sugra was alive and the suit land had not devolved upon Shalu Singh. It was also held that the relinquishment deed did not pass valid title for want of registration. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2008, the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings returned by the trial court. Counsel for the appellants submits that the relinquishment deed is, in essence, a family settlement and therefore, does not require registration. It is further argued that as the property was to devolve from Sugra to Shalu Singh, the latter was entitled to execute a relinquishment deed in anticipation of the inheritance that he was to receive. It is submitted that the following substantial questions of law arises for consideration: “1. Whether the writing Exh.PW2/A requires registration as the same is a R.S.A. No. 3426 of 2008 3 family settlement between the parties? 2. Whether law of estoppel is applicable against the defendants as the defendants are the party on the writing dated 1.2.1967? 3. Whether there is any misappreciation or non-leading of the evidence by the courts below for coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not owner in possession of the suit land?” I have heard counsel for the appellants, perused the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below and express my inability to hold that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from any error of law, much less the errors pointed out or that the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant arise for consideration. A relinquishment deed, by its very nature confers and divests parties of title and is therefore, compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Admittedly, the relinquishment deed is unregistered. The courts below, were therefore, right in holding that the relinquishment deed does not pass valid title. The argument that as Ex. PW-2/A is a family settlement that does not require registration, is belied by the document. It would be necessary to mention that if a written family settlement purports to divest and create title, it requires registration. It would also be necessary to mention here that on R.S.A. No. 3426 of 2008 4 the date of the execution of PW-2/A i.e. 1.02.1967 Shalu Singh was not the owner of the suit land as Sugra was still alive. As regards the plea of estoppel, suffice is to state that even if Ex.PW2/A is signed by the respondents, it would not operate as an estoppel against the provisions of the Registration Act. The questions of law framed by the appellant are answered accordingly and it is held that these questions do not arise for consideration. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 6th August, 2009 SKaushik