News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 10
Bilaspur, 06.01.2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur has dismissed a second appeal arising out of a long-standing family property dispute, holding that a memorandum recording a prior family settlement does not require compulsory registration and that the civil suit challenging the settlement was barred by limitation. The ruling was delivered by Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal in Second Appeal No. 455 of 2012 on November 6, 2025.
The dispute involved agricultural lands situated in villages Kashigarh, Aamgaon and Mauhadih in Janjgir-Champa district. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs before the trial court, sought a declaration of title over a one-fourth share in the properties along with separate possession. They claimed that the lands were ancestral and that an alleged partition deed dated June 7, 1982 was forged, unregistered and legally invalid. According to them, certain properties were self-acquired and could not have been included in any partition.
Opposing the claim, the respondents maintained that a family partition had already taken place prior to 1982 and that the document dated June 7, 1982 was only a memorandum recording a family settlement that had already been acted upon. They argued that the plaintiffs had accepted the arrangement, enjoyed the benefits flowing from it and were therefore estopped from reopening the issue after more than two decades.
After examining the record, the High Court agreed with the findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. It held that the document in question was not a deed of exchange transferring ownership, but a memorandum acknowledging an earlier family settlement and separation of possession. Since it merely recorded a pre-existing arrangement and did not itself create or extinguish rights in immovable property, it did not require registration under the Registration Act, 1908. The Court relied on settled Supreme Court jurisprudence on family settlements to reinforce this position.
On the issue of limitation, the Court noted that although there is generally no limitation for seeking partition of joint family property, the present case stood on a different footing. The partition had already taken place and was acknowledged through the memorandum executed in 1982. Even though some of the plaintiffs were minors at that time, they failed to challenge the settlement within three years of attaining majority. The suit, filed only in 2005, was therefore rightly held to be time-barred.
Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings of the lower courts, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the validity of the family settlement. The Court directed that each party would bear its own costs, bringing the prolonged litigation to a close.
Case Reference : SA No. 455 of 2012, Mahadev S/o Ghasiram and Others vs Sonau Ram S/o Dharmu and Others
Counsels : For Appellants : Shri H.B. Agrawal, Sr.Advocate along with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. For Respondent 1 to 3 : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate.