Oral family partition memorandum can be relied on without registration; interim injunction refused where equities and conduct favoured the settlement.
A memorandum recording an earlier oral family partition does not, by itself, create or extinguish rights in immovable property and is not compulsorily registrable; it may be relied on prima facie even if one co-sharer did not sign it, particularly where the parties later acted upon the settlement. Interim injunction was also refused because the applicant failed to show a stronger equitable case: the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and conduct of the parties favoured maintaining the existing arrangement rather than restraining development or transfer. The appeal therefore did not justify interference at the interim stage.
Issues: (i) Whether the family settlement dated 8 February 1967 could be treated as a memorandum of a prior oral partition and relied upon without registration and notwithstanding that one co-sharer had not signed it; (ii) whether the appellant had made out a case for grant of interim injunction restraining development or transfer of the suit property.
Issue (i): Whether the family settlement dated 8 February 1967 could be treated as a memorandum of a prior oral partition and relied upon without registration and notwithstanding that one co-sharer had not signed it.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the document was an operative deed of partition or only a record of an earlier oral arrangement. A memorandum recording an already completed oral family arrangement does not by itself create or extinguish rights in immovable property and is not compulsorily registrable. The Court also noted that although one co-sharer had not signed the document, the parties had subsequently acted upon the settlement by dealing with the properties in accordance with it, which weakened the challenge to its validity for the limited interim purpose.
Conclusion: The settlement could be treated, prima facie, as a memorandum of an earlier oral partition and could be relied upon at this stage.
Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had made out a case for grant of interim injunction restraining development or transfer of the suit property.
Analysis: Interim relief in injunction matters depends on prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and the equitable conduct of the parties. On the material before the Court, the respondent had already acquired rights under the settlement and had been protected by restrictions against alienation or creation of third-party rights. The appellant's own conduct in executing conveyances in respect of portions of the property also told against his claim to urgent equitable relief. Interference with the arrangement would risk causing greater hardship to the respondent than denial of further restraint would cause to the appellant.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the interim injunction sought.
Final Conclusion: The appeal did not warrant interference, and the matter was disposed of with directions intended to safeguard the suit pending final adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: A memorandum recording a prior oral family settlement does not require registration, and interim injunction may be declined where the parties have acted upon the settlement and the balance of convenience, irreparable injury, and equitable conduct do not favour restraint.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
