By Devika Mehra and Shubham Tripathi
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on an appeal filed, in the matter of Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors.[1] has held that a settlement deed, executed in respect of a joint property, must record written consent and signatures of all the parties to attain legality. Therefore, in a suit for partition of joint property, a consent decree only amongst some of the parties cannot be maintained.
The basic facts majorly emanate after the passing of one Mr. Kumar Sahoo in 1969, and him being survived by his three children namely, Ms. Charulata, Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla, which lead to the filing of a suit for partition before the Trial Court in 1980 by Ms. Charulata who claimed 1/3rd share in the ancestral and self-acquired properties of her deceased father. A Preliminary Decree was passed by the Trial Court in 1986 and held the share of the children as follows:
- Charulata: 1/6th share in ancestral properties and 1/3rd share self-acquired properties of her deceased father, including mesne profits.
- Santilata: 1/6th share in ancestral properties and 1/3rd share in self-acquired properties of her deceased father, including mesne profits.
- Prafulla: 4/6th share in ancestral properties and 1/3rd share in self-acquired properties of her deceased father, including mesne profits.
Mr. Prafulla filed a First Appeal before the High Court of Orissa, contending that the Trial Court should have held all the properties of his late father, to be ancestral properties, and while the First Appeal was pending Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla entered into a Settlement Deed wherein Ms. Santilata relinquished her share for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, on a compromise petition filed in the First Appeal, the appeal was disposed by the High Court while holding the settlement deed to be valid and also, since it was not prejudicially affecting the rights of Ms. Charulata.
However, later on Mr. Prafulla went in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench submitting that all the properties of his deceased father were ancestral properties, and Ld. Single Judge had not decided on the issue that whether all the properties were ancestral or some were self-acquired as well. Ms. Santilata challenged the validity of the settlement deed through cross-appeal in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by Mr. Prafulla.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by Mr. Prafulla and invalidated the settlement deed, and the legal heirs of Mr. Prafulla approached the Hon’ble Court with the present appeal. The Hon’ble Court after hearing the contention of the parties, framed the following issue:
- The manner in which the rights of the parties would be governed, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Court in the matter of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma and Ors.[2]
- The validity of the Settlement Deed entered between Ms. Santilata and Mr. Prafulla.
With respect to the first issue the Hon’ble Court analysed extensively the judgment passed in Vineeta Sharma which also highlighted that a change in law during the pendency of a proceeding, must be considered and appropriately applied. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court held that the daughters are entitled to 1/3rd share in all the properties, as the Trial Court had only passed a preliminary decree and, the issue of share can be completely decided only when a final decree is passed. Since, before passing the final decree the law governing the parties got amended so, the Trial Court can take cognizance and give effect to the same. Although, the Hon’ble Court did not find any error committed by courts below however, directions were passed to give effect to the Amendment and redetermine the shares accordingly.
On the issue of the validity of the Settlement Deed, the Hon’ble Court dealt with Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and also catena of judgments passed by it, and observed that under Order XXIII Rule 3 the compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties when a claim is adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful agreement. The Agreement must be capable of being embodied in a decree[3]. Since, in the present matter Ms. Charulata had not signed the Settlement Deed and had maintained from the start that she never joined the settlement so the same was unlawful, as it being without written consent of all the parties. Therefore, the legal heirs of Mr. Prafulla were held to be not entitled to the shares of Ms. Santilata.
[1] Civil Appeal No. 2913-2915 of 2018.
[2] (2020) 9 SCC 1
[3] Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988) 1 SCC 270.