- (1.)THIS appeal by the plaintiff was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law : -
"(i) Whether the finding of learned First Appellate Court holding that the family settlement has no sanctity in the eye of law since it is an unregistered document, runs contrary to the dictum of Supreme Court in Tek Bahadur Bhujil Vs. Debi Singh Bhujil and others, AIR 1966 SC 292 ? (ii) What is the impact of admission of defendant No. 1 - Smt.. Khilona Bahu in her testimony that Ratanlal is the Karta of the family ? (iii) Whether in view of admission of defendant No. 1 -Smt. Khilona Bahu that Ratanlal was the Karta of the family, the judgment of learned First Appellate Court holding that Ratanlal was not Karta, is vitiated by ignoring the admission of defendant No. 1 -Smt. Khilona Bahu ? (iv) Whether Ratan being Karta of HUF was having authority to settle the suit property in the name of plaintiff ?''

(2.)THEREAFTER , following additional substantial questions of law were framed : -
"(v) Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed an error of law in reversing the findings with regard to possession of the plaintiff and in consequently setting aside the decree for injunction, without meeting the reasoning of the Trial Court with regard to finding of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land ? (vi) Whether the family settlement can be read in evidence, as the same is an unstamped document ?''

In order to appreciate the relationship between the parties, genealogical tree as mentioned in the plaint is reproduced : - JUDGEMENT_390_MPHT4_2013.jpg

(3.)THE plaintiff filed a suit, inter alia, on the ground that plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are the members of joint family. The suit lands admeasuring 0. 405 and 0.404 hectares of Khasra Nos. 68/2 and 68/3 were purchased 'Benami' vide registered sale deed dated 20 -6 -1969 from the funds of joint family. However, in the revenue records the name of defendant No. 1 alone was recorded. The plaintiff from her husband's income and from her 'stridhan' purchased a land in Village Raheli, which was situated adjacent to the land bearing Khasra Nos. 69/2 and 69/4, i. e., the land belonging to joint family of which Ratanlal was the 'Karta'. The plaintiff in order to have one consolidated plot appointed Ratanlal, namely, husband of defendant No. 1, to be her attorney and authorised him to sell her land. In pursuance of aforesaid authority Ratanlal sold the land admeasuring 0.607 hectares of Khasra No. 48/6 for a consideration of Rs. 7000/ - vide registered sale deed dated 7 -4 -1985 (Exh. P -1) to one Bhagawandas. However, the sale consideration was not paid to plaintiff.