Reveune Records are not documents of title #indianlaws

 Revenue records do not evidence passing of title, or create title.

The impugned judgment in the instant matter dismissed claim of Plaintiff seeking partition, declaration and rendition of accounts.

The factual matrix reveals that one ‘M’, who had six children – 3 sons and 3 daughters, left behind a large estate and considerable agricultural land. The plaintiffs, who were the legal representatives of deceased daughter ‘C’ laid claim to 1/5th share of the entire estate of ‘M’, alleging that ‘C’ was entitled to that share of his estate. The contention raised by the Plaintiff was that by customary law applicable to their community, the married daughter could claim a share in the coparcenary equal to that of the sons and other male coparceners. The claim was resisted by others on the ground that ‘C’ had relinquished her share of 1/5th of the 1/3rd (falling to ‘M’ on notional partition before his death) of the coparcenary property. It was argued that they had settled with ‘C’ and agreed to pay her money as well as consideration or gift at the time of festivals and on the occasion of marriage etc. in her family and some amount was also stated to have been paid at the time of settlement and also later on the occasion of marriage of C’s daughter.

The primary point of issue was whether parties were governed in matters of succession by Hindu Law or custom besides the disputes issues of facts i.e. whether ‘C’ had relinquished her share and if there was no relinquishment how would the estate of ‘M’ be divided?

Before the appellate Court the issues for adjudication were to determine as whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to any share in the estate of ‘M’ through ‘C’ and whether there was a valid and binding family settlement proved during the proceedings, by which ‘C’ gave up her entitlement to such share in favour of other parties.

In regard to first issue it was observed that when ‘M’ died in 1960, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Act) had come into force. The properties which devolved upon him on the death of his father was ancestral and with the advent of the Act, the properties became self-acquired in his hands, by virtue of Section 8 of the Act, the position well clarified and settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Chander Sen, which while taking reference of preamble to the Act noted that the Act was enacted to amend and codify the law relating to intestate succession among Hindus. In view of the preamble to the Act, i.e., that to modify where necessary and to codify the law, it was held as not possible when Schedule indicates heirs in class I and only includes son and does not include son’s son but does include son of a predeceased son, to say that when son inherits the property in the situation contemplated by section 8 he takes it as karta of his own undivided family. Heirs in class I of Schedule under section 8 of the Act included widow, mother, daughter of predeceased son etc.

It was held that the express words of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 cannot be ignored and must prevail. The preamble to the Act reiterates that the Act is to ‘amend’ the law, with that background the express language which excludes son’s son but included son of a predeceased son cannot be ignored.

Section 4 of the Act overrides all customs, texts, etc to the extent that they provide for anything contrary to what is contained in the Act. Such being the case, the custom sought to be proved by the Plaintiffs (which according to them permitted married daughters to claim a share equal to that of the male coparceners) was held to be of no relevance.
The other question on which the parties’ claims were based was whether ‘C’ had entered into a family arrangement or settlement with her brothers. The documentary evidence and oral testimonies proved the fact about settlement and the same was held to be as correct.

Further question that arose was whether in the absence of a written document, an entry in the revenue records could be treated as a valid relinquishment. It was observed that revenue records do not evidence passing of title, or create title – a vital consideration which has to be seen in each case; they are a record or evidence of a settlement that took place before its making, between ‘C’ and her brothers (as in the instant case). This distinction, i.e. whether the document creates a right, or merely records a past oral agreement, which settles disputes or matters inter se, between members of a family, all of whom have title, or claims to title, is to be kept in mind in each case where a family settlement is pleaded.

The legal position reiterated to indicate the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretized form came out vide following propositions:

(1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family;
(2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence;
(3) The family arrangements may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary;
(4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in Immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17 of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable;
(5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld, and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same;
(6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.

[Sukhbir Singh vs. Gaindo Devi]
[Delhi HC, 26.09.2014]