2011 (9) TMI 1233 - HC - Indian Laws

Family Settlement Upheld: Land Division Valid

Rajender Mohan Rana and Ors. Versus Prem Prakash Chaudhary and Ors.

The court affirmed the validity of a family settlement among joint bhumidhars, dividing land holdings and subsequent mutation order, dismissing the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the family settlement and compromise dated 26th December, 1984.2. Legality of the mutation order dated 9th June, 1995.3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.4. Relevance of Sections 33 and 57 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.5. Impact of judicial precedents on family settlements and partition.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Family Settlement and Compromise:The judgment acknowledges that the four brothers, who were joint bhumidhars of the land after the death of their father Siri Lal, entered into a family settlement on 26th December, 1984, dividing the land among themselves. This was followed by an amicable settlement before Panchas, resulting in an award dated 14th May, 1989. The civil suit filed by two of the brothers was dismissed as compromised based on this settlement. The court noted that the application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was an admission of the settlement by the appellants, who did not dispute the partition but raised a legal contention under Section 55 of the Reforms Act.2. Legality of the Mutation Order:The Tehsildar's order dated 9th June, 1995, allowing the mutation based on the compromise application, was challenged. The court found merit in the appellant's contention that the Tehsildar's reasoning was unsustainable because the civil suit was dismissed on the basis of compromise, and the Tehsildar did not examine the effect of Section 85 of the Reforms Act and the Supreme Court judgment in Hatti v. Sunder Singh. However, the court did not find this a sufficient ground to remit the matter, as the family settlement and subsequent actions were not disputed.3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 55 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954:The appellants argued that the family settlement and admissions were illegal under Section 55, which they claimed prescribed the only mode of partition. The court disagreed, stating that Section 55 prescribes one way of partition through legal proceedings but does not bar joint bhumidhars from entering into a settlement or compromise. The court emphasized that the word 'may' in Section 55 indicates discretion and is not mandatory, supporting this interpretation with judicial precedents that distinguish between 'may' and 'shall.'4. Relevance of Sections 33 and 57 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954:The court addressed the appellants' reference to Sections 33 and 57(1)(b), which concern the fragmentation of holdings and conditions for partition. It was noted that Section 33 does not apply to partitions as there is no transferor or transferee in such cases. Section 57(1)(b) allows for partition even if it results in holdings of less than eight standard acres, provided certain conditions are met. The court concluded that these sections do not prohibit family settlements or mutual agreements for partition.5. Impact of Judicial Precedents on Family Settlements and Partition:The judgment extensively cited Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the importance and validity of family settlements. It highlighted that family settlements are recognized as a legitimate method of partition, promoting peace and harmony among family members. The court referenced cases such as Hari Shankar Singhania v. Gaur Hari Singhania and Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, which support the enforcement of family settlements to avoid litigation and maintain family unity.Conclusion:The court concluded that the provisions of the Reforms Act do not prohibit joint bhumidhars from entering into a family settlement to partition their holdings. It dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the family settlement and the subsequent mutation order, with no orders as to costs.