Family Settlement Memorandum Recording Past Partition Does Not Require Registration: Delhi High Court Upholds Oral Family Arrangement, Reverses First Appellate Court's Findings

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Shri Dhanpat Rai Gupta vs Shri Kashmiri Lal & Ors

Citation: RSA No. — (Delhi High Court)

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

Date of Judgment: 29th June, 2026

Area of Law: Property Law, Family Law, Registration Act, Specific Relief Act, Civil Procedure Code

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court allowed a Regular Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the Trial Court's decree. The dispute arose between four real brothers who jointly purchased land in 1954 and subsequently entered into an oral family settlement dividing the property. The plaintiff claimed possession of two shops that had fallen to his share under the family settlement, but were forcibly dispossessed by defendant no.1 in 1992. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, but the First Appellate Court reversed the findings. The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred in reversing the Trial Court's well-reasoned findings without properly appreciating the evidence, including the Memorandum of Settlement, site plan, electricity records, and tax records. The Court further held that the Memorandum recording the family settlement did not require registration as it merely recorded an already existing oral partition, which the parties had acted upon over several years. The appeal was allowed, and the plaintiff's suit for possession was decreed.

3. Relevant Facts

Background of the Property

• Four real brothers—plaintiff Dhanpat Rai Gupta, defendant no.1 Kashmiri Lal Gupta, defendant no.2 Ram Gopal Gupta, and Late Shri Raghu Nath Gupta—jointly purchased land admeasuring 18 bighas and 6 biswas in Village Pipal Thala, Delhi, vide Sale Deed dated 14.07.1954.

• Out of this, 11 bighas and 6 biswas comprised Khasra No. 429/135/1.

• The land was purchased for residential purposes. After development, the brothers reserved about 1 bigha and 2 biswas (approx. 1300 sq. yards) for their own use, while the remaining portion was divided into residential plots and sold.

Oral Family Settlement

• To avoid future disputes, the brothers entered into an oral family settlement, whereby each brother became entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of the portion of land under his occupation.

• Each brother occupied separate portions, deposited development charges, submitted building plans, paid house tax, and raised constructions on their respective portions.

• Defendant no.2 and the legal heirs of Raghu Nath Gupta (defendant nos. 3(a) to 3(d)) admitted the oral family settlement in their written statement.

Memorandum of Settlement

• In October 1986, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement (Ex. PW3/5) recording the oral partition.

• The Memorandum specified the areas that fell to each brother's share: Ram Gopal Gupta (256.26 sq. mtrs.), Dhanpat Rai Gupta (242.09 sq. mtrs.), Raghu Nath Gupta (251.38 sq. mtrs.), and Kashmiri Lal Gupta (277.30 sq. mtrs.).

• A Site Plan (Ex. PW3/6) was annexed, identifying each brother's share in different colours.

• The Memorandum recorded that there was no formal Deed of Partition and the property had been partitioned by metes and bounds by conduct.

Construction and Possession

• Defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 constructed residential houses on their portions between 1973-1975.

• The plaintiff constructed two shops (Mark 'A' and 'B') and a hall up to plinth level on his portion.

• Defendant no.1 and 2 obtained separate electricity connections for their portions.

• The plaintiff's son, Kailash Chand Gupta, obtained an ad-hoc lice

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.