Case: Kale and Others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation Others


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]In these circumstances there can be no doubt that even if the family settlement was not registered it would operate as a complete estoppel against respondents 4 & 5. Respondent No. 1 as also the High Court, therefore, committed substantial error of law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel as spelt out by this Court in so many cases. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a number of authorities in Rachcha v. Mt. Mendha, (AIR 1947 All. 177.) Chief Controlling 6 Revenue Authority v. Smt. Satyawati Sood and Others (AIR 1972 Delhi 171.) and some other authorities, which, in our opinion have no bearing on the issues to be decided in this case and it is therefore not necessary for us to refer to theview of our finding that the family settlement did not contravene any provision of the law but was a legally valid and binding settlement in accordance with the law, the view of Respondent No. 1 that it was against the provisions of the law was clearly wrong on a point of law and could not be sustained. Similarly the view of the High Court that the compromise required registration was also wrong in view of the clear fact that the mutation petition filed before the Assistant Commissioner did not embody the terms of the family arrangement but was merely in the nature of a memorandum meant for the information of the Court. The High Court further in law in not giving effect to the doctrine of estoppel which is always applied whenever any party to the valid family settlement tries to assail The High Court further erred in not considering the fact that even if the family arrangement was not registered it could be used for a collateral purpose, namely, for the purpose of showing the nature and character o possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement and a o for the purpose of applying the rule of estoppel which followed from the conduct of the parties who having taken benefit under the settlement keep their mouths shut for full seven years and later try to resile from the settlement. In Shyam Sunder and others v. Siya Ram and another (AIR 1973 All. 382  , 389.) it was clearly held by the Allahabad High Court that the compromise could have been taken into consideration as a piece of evidence even if it was not registered or for that matter as an evidence of an antecedent title. The High Court observed asdecision in Ram Gopal v. Tulshi Ram, AIR 1928 All. 641 (FB)-is clear that such a recital can be relied upon as a piece ofis clear, therefore, that the compromise can be taken into consideration as a piece of evidence. x x x To sum up, therefore, we are of the view that the compromise could have been relied upon as an admission of antecedent title."On a careful consideration of the facts and the circumstances and the law discussed above, we are clearly of the opinion that-the orders of the High Court as also that of Respondent No. 1 suffer from a substantial error of law resulting in serious injustice to the appellant by re- opening a dispute which had been settled almost seven to eight years before the proceedings for re-opening the same were started. In not interfering to correct the clear error of law committed by Respondent No. 1, the High Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law and, therefore, the order of the High Court itself was legally erroneous and cannot be sustained. The contentions raised by the appellant are well founded and must prevail, while the contentions advanced by the respondent fail.