JUDGMENT
M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Shailesh Kumar son of Piara Lal r/o 13-B, Model Town. Yamunanagar inslituled suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of House No. 13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar as described in the heading of the plaint against his sisters S/Smt. Sadhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta, on the allegations, that earlier, Smt. Bimla Gupta was owner of this property. She died on 28.7.1996, leaving this property and the plaintiff and the defendants as her legal heirs. Plaintiff and the defendants are the children of Smt. Bimla Gupta. A family settlement took place between the parties. As per that the family settlement, property in suit described in the heading of the plaint came to the exclusive share of the plaintiff. Possession of the disputed property was handed over to him and since then, he has been in possession of the property in suit as its exclusive owner. Defendants were called upon to cooperate with him and act in a manner that the property in suit was recorded in his name in the record.
2. Defendants filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff.
3. Vide order dated 13.9.1997, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jagadhri dismissed the plaintiffs suit on the view, relying upon Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh, AIR 1996 SC 196 that the property in suit had been inherited by the parties who are brother and sisters, from their mother and as such it was not ancestral/coparcenary property, in which plaintiff could be said to have pre-existing right and regarding which family settlement could be arrived at.
4. Plaintiff went in appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri vide order dated 2.2.2000.
5. Still not satisfied, plaintiff has come up in further appeal to this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a family settlement entered into by S/Smt. Sandhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta with their brother Shailesh Kumar. In view of the said family settlement Ex. P-i dated 2.7.1996, the said house bearing No.13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagr fell to the share of their brother Shailesh Kumar. It is recorded that Smt. Bimla Gupta owned movable and immovable properties including house No.13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar. She died on 28.6.1996 leaving behind four heirs namely S/Smt Sandhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta-daughters and Shailesh Kumarson. Family settlement Ex.P-1 is
dated 2.7.1996, between Shailesh Kumar and his sisters with regard to the property which devolved upon them from their mother Smt. Bimla Gupta.
8. On the. death of their mother Smt. Bimla Gupta, each of them inherited her in equal shares i.e. each of them got 1/4th share each in the properly left by Smt. Bimla Gupta. In the properties owned by Smt. Bimla Gupta none of them had any pre-existing right, as for instance, among Hindus, in Joint Hindu Family/Coparcener/Ancestral Property, sons have pre-existing right equal to their father and this right becomes attached to them the moment they are born. The have, thus, pre-existing right in he Joint Hindu Family/Coparcenary/Ancestral Property. In this property none of them had any right so long as Smt. Bimla Gupta was alive. None of them had any prior right in the property which developed upon them.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that family settlement among the members of the family does not require registration. In support of this sub-mission, he drew my attention to Pritam Singh v. Darshan Singh and Ors., 1991 Civil Court cases 642 where it was held that family settlement does not require registration.
10. Ex.P-1 cannot be viewed as a “family settlement” because in “family settlement”, only the property belonging to the family is involved. In this case, house No.13-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar was involved. It was not the property of the family. It was earlier the property of Smt. Bimla Gupta, on whose death, it devolved upon her three daughters and one son in equal shares. Thus, each of them was owner of 1/4th share of this house in his/her own independent right. Brothers and sisters are independent entities. They cannot be viewed as members of the same family, particularly when the property which they have come by is their exclusive property having developed upon them on succession and in which they did not have any pre-existing right.
11. In Kale and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 807 it was held that the family settlement must be bona fide 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.
12. Family settlement, thus, pre-supposes the existence of some dispute and to settle the dispute, family settlement is arrived at between the members of the family.
13. It was held in AIR 1976 SC 807 (supra), 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.
14. In this case, through family settlement Ex.P-1 Smt. Sandhya Gupta has given up her l/4th share in the house No.l3-B, Model Town, Yamunanagar in favour of her bother. Similarly, Smt. Abha Gupta has given up her l/4th share in the said house in favour of her brother. Smt. Anurag Gupta has also given up her l/4th share in the said house in favour of her brother. They have vested their 3/4th share in the said house in favour of their brother. The said vesting is not possible through Ex.P-1. It would be misnomer to label Ex.P-l as family settlement.
15. In Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major and Ors., AIR 1996 Supreme Court 196, it was held if the compromise decree were to create for the fist time right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- or upwards in favour of any party to the suit, the decree or order would require registration.
16. It was thus a compromise decree creating right, title or interest in the immovable property belonging to Smt. Sandhya Gupta, Smt. Abha Gupta and Smt. Anurag Gupta which was worth more than Rs. 100/- in Shailesh Kumar. As such, compromise decree required registration. In the shares of S/Smt. Sandhya Gupta, Abha Gupta and Anurag Gupta, right was created for the first time through Ex.P-1, which cannot be viewed as “family settlement”, as the word family is understood. Family settlement is envisageable among members of the same family who are laying clam to the family property.
Sisters of course could relinquish their shares in favour of their brother through retinquishment deed/deeds which would also require registration. If through Ex. P-1, it is viewed that sisters gifted their shares, such gift deed would also require registration. Sisters relinquished their right in favour of their brother in immovable property worth more than Rs.100/-.
17. For the reason given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed.