Limitation and registration rules defeated challenges to a gift deed, sale deed and unregistered family settlement.

Property claimed as ancestral was not proved to be so because the suit property stood purchased in the recorded owner's name under a 1945 sale deed, and later compensation evidence did not explain that purchase; the gift deed by the self-acquired owner was therefore not invalidated on that ground. The challenge to the gift deed was held time-barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as knowledge existed by 13.11.1997 and the suit was filed in 2003; the subsequent sale deed could not be impeached because valid title had passed under the gift. An unregistered family settlement that itself effected partition of immovable property was inadmissible and could not support claims for partition or possession.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit property was ancestral property and the gift deed executed by the recorded owner could be invalidated on that basis; (ii) whether the challenge to the gift deed was barred by limitation and whether the subsequent sale deed could be impeached; (iii) whether the unregistered family settlement could be relied upon to claim partition and possession.

Issue (i): Whether the suit property was ancestral property and the gift deed executed by the recorded owner could be invalidated on that basis.

Analysis: The property stood purchased in the name of the recorded owner under a sale deed of 1945. The evidence regarding compensation for properties left behind in Pakistan related to a later period and could not explain the consideration for the 1945 purchase. The claimed ancestral character was therefore not established. Once the property was held to be self-acquired, the recorded owner had competence to gift it.

Conclusion: The property was not proved to be ancestral, and the gift deed could not be invalidated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the gift deed was barred by limitation and whether the subsequent sale deed could be impeached.

Analysis: The plaintiff had knowledge of the gift deed at least by 13.11.1997, and the suit filed in 2003 was beyond the prescribed period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Since the gift in favour of the defendant was valid, she had title to convey the property. The objection regarding the husband's consent and mental condition was not substantiated so as to displace the title flowing from the gift deed.

Conclusion: The challenge to the gift deed was barred by limitation, and the sale deed could not be disturbed.

Issue (iii): Whether the unregistered family settlement could be relied upon to claim partition and possession.

Analysis: The document dated 13.11.1997 effected a partition of immovable property and was not merely a memorandum recording a past oral partition. Such a document, being unregistered, was inadmissible in evidence and could not found any right. There was also no reliable evidence that the plaintiff was ever put in possession of any portion of the suit property.

Conclusion: The family settlement was inadmissible and no decree for partition or possession could be granted.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed in full, and the decree dismissing the suit was affirmed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A writing that itself effects partition of immovable property must be registered to be admissible and enforceable, and a challenge to a deed must be brought within limitation from the date of knowledge.

---