P&H HC Restores Ejectment Execution Against Tenant Son Who Claimed His Father’s Self-Acquired Plot Under Unregistered Settlement

Chiranji Lal, owner of self-acquired property, obtained an ejectment order against his tenant-son, Dilbag Singh, on 12 March 1992.

In execution, Dilbag objected that a family settlement dated 18 December 1992 had made him owner of the portion containing the demised room and had extinguished the decree.

The Executing Court accepted the objections and dismissed the execution petition, relying on a photocopy of the settlement and finding waiver.

Chiranji Lal’s revision challenged that order.

During its pendency, he died, and Dilbag became one of his legal heirs.

Order XXI Rule 2 CPC requires an out-of-court payment or adjustment of a decree to be certified or recorded; an uncertified adjustment cannot ordinarily be recognised, and Article 125 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the period for seeking its recordal.

The earlier remand order in the same proceedings bound the parties as to consideration of the objections, but did not determine the settlement’s validity

Under Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, a memorandum recording a completed oral family arrangement need not be registered, but an instrument that itself creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property requires registration; its substance, not its label, governs

Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 require registration for an instrument creating or declaring rights in immovable property and limit the effect of an unregistered instrument; Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 governs gifts of immovable property.

Waiver requires intentional and unequivocal relinquishment of a known right

Under Sections 8, 10 and 19 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, heirs may take as tenants-in-common; merger of tenancy under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act requires the entire interests of lessor and lessee to vest in the same person in the same right

The settlement purported to make Dilbag absolute owner of a specified part of his father’s self-acquired property, although Dilbag had no established antecedent ownership interest.

The Court therefore treated the writing, in substance, as creating ownership rights rather than merely recording a completed arrangement; as it was unregistered, it could not establish the asserted transfer

Even if execution of the photocopy were proved, that would not establish its legal effect or extinguish the ejectment decree

The settlement did not refer to the ejectment order or expressly release the right to execute it, and delay in seeking execution—within the limitation period—did not prove intentional waiver.

Chiranji Lal’s subsequent opposition to the settlement further contradicted waiver

Dilbag’s later inheritance could give him an undivided share, subject to proof of succession, but did not confer exclusive title to the demised room or retrospectively satisfy the decree; any inheritance rights remained available to be worked out through appropriate proceedings

It restored the execution petition and directed the Executing Court to proceed with enforcement of the ejectment order without reopening the issues of the alleged settlement or waiver

Dilbag’s independent rights, if any, as a co-sharer were preserved, and execution was not to determine the heirs’ respective ownership shares

The Executing Court was directed to deal with the deposited amount and security in accordance with law and to endeavour to conclude execution within three months, subject to any subsisting order of a competent court; no order as to costs was made