Family Settlement

2026 SCMR 941 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

O.XX, R.18Partition of ancestral estateFamily settlementSelective claim over disputed property by one heirPartial partition of property, permissibility ofPreliminary decreeMandatory determination of sharesFailure to specify sharesMaterial irregularity

Present matter concerned a dispute between three brothers over the partition of property left by their deceased father, comprising four houses

A family arrangement allegedly allocated one house to each brother, while one property remained undivided

Litigation first arose when two brothers sought injunction regarding construction over the disputed house

Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the disputed property, which resulted in a preliminary decree in his favour and the same was upheld by the Appellate Court and the High Court

Pivotal issue requiring determination before the Supreme Court was as to “whether the suit for partition confined to a selected portion of joint property, without determining the shares of all co-sharers and without including the entire estate, was legally sustainable and whether a preliminary decree passed without compliance with Order XX Rule 18, C.P.C. was valid in law?”

Held: The suit concerned the partition of property along with a request for separate possession of an individual share

Given this context it was imperative that the Trial Court adhered to the procedural guidelines set out in Rule 18 of Order XX, C.P.C. when issuing preliminary decree

Unfortunately, this essential procedure was overlooked

Judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below were unsustainable

Matter was referred back to the Trail Court to decide the suit afresh in accordance with law

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

2024 SCMR 1984 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 9, 39, 42 & 54Suit for declaration, cancellation of documents and possession along with perpetual injunctionDispute between members of a family over distribution of assetsFamily settlement

Purpose and significance of a family settlement and principles governing such settlements stated.

2024 SCMR 1984 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 17Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 17(2)(a)Family settlementWhether settlement document required registration and attestation by two witnessesHeld, that in the case at hand, a document detailing the distribution of properties was draftedThis document could be categorized as a family arrangement rather than a standard partition deed

Its contents revealed that the brothers initially reached an oral agreement regarding property distribution, which was then recorded in a memorandum

Property division outlined in the memorandum did not involve transferring property from one brother to another, nor did any brother derive their property rights from another

Instead, the arrangement embodied in the memorandum acknowledged the rights of each brother to specific properties listed under their names

How the properties were to be transferred from one brother to another was verbally settled among the four brothers, and general powers of attorneys were exchanged among all the brothers to give effect to this verbal agreement

Since the memorandum did not constitute a deed of transfer, gift, exchange, surrender, etc., it did not fall under the clauses of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which require registration

It also did not contain any financial or future obligations requiring attestation by two witnesses as per Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

However, if the settlement were used as a document to create or declare rights in immovable property worth more than Rs.100, it would have needed attestation by two witnesses and also registration

It is important to note that, even though the memorandum was not registered, it was open for either party to prove that there had been a family settlement which was acted upon

Appeal was allowed.

2022 SCMR 1532 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 182Suit for declarationJoint holding, division ofFamily settlementProofAdmission by Attorney of existence of Family SettlementPrincipal bound by such admissionMala fides of Patwari in not sanctioning mutation in terms of the settlement

In the present case the admission(s) on part of the defendants/petitioners coupled with documentary evidence clearly established the fact that the Family settlement ('the Settlement') in fact existed and, that the revenue officials could not sanction any mutation which was contrary thereto

Attorney of the petitioners admitted the existence of the Settlement, and an admission made by Attorney was binding on his Principal who authorized him to do so, unless a contrary intention was proved on behalf of the petitioners or that he was not so authorized

Such statement of Attorney had not been disowned by the petitioners

Fact which was expressly and unequivocally admitted by the petitioners through their Attorney, would not require proof

Settlement operated as an agreement between the parties and they were bound by its terms

Petitioners never challenged the Settlement before any forum which effectively meant that the Settlement still bound the parties thereto and their legal heirs

Settlement was validly executed and, did not require compulsory registration

Settlement Award was handed over to the Patwari for incorporation in the relevant Register

However, the Patwari procured signatures/thumb impressions of parties on a blank 'Parat' of the mutation and, the Award was not given effect

Contrarily, the property which was to be given to the respondents was given to the petitioners through the impugned mutation, showing that the Patwari's actions were tainted with mala fide

Patwari was duty bound to sanction a mutation in accordance with the terms of the Award/Settlement placed before him

Suit for declaration filed by the respondents had rightly been decreed by the High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

2019 YLR 825 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 52Suit for declarationTemporary injunction, grant ofFamily settlementAllegation of fraudEffectQuestion of fraud was not purely a question of lawParty alleging fraud was bound to prove the commission of fraudFindings with regard to commission of fraud were to be based on cogent, unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidenceMere allegations of fraud could not partake proof required under the lawFraud could not be presumed rather same must be proved as a positive act

Fraud alleged by the plaintiff to have been committed by the defendants was simple allegations and nothing more which had to be determined during course of the trial

Agreement entered into by fraud was voidable and not void

Person seeking to avoid an agreement on the ground of fraud had to be prompt in seeking redress

Agreement alleged to have been entered into by fraud did remain operative as long as it was not set aside, rescinded or recalled by a competent authority

Family settlement alleged by the plaintiff to have been based on fraud would remain operative until civil court after trial declared that said agreement was void on account of having been executed on the basis of fraud committed by the defendants

Plaintiff at this stage did not have a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction

Trial Court had rightly exercised its discretion while dismissing application for interim injunction

Principle of lis pendens would apply to the pendente lite sale of the properties which were subject matter of the suit

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 CLCN 25 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

IngredientsGift mutationProof ofProcedureFamily settlementScopeContention of plaintiffs was that transaction of gift was forged and fictitiousSuit was dismissed concurrentlyValidityOnus to prove valid gift was on the defendants being beneficiaries of disputed mutationAttestation of gift mutation was a subsequent step to the gift transactionPrior to attestation of gift mutation there was transaction of gift which was required to be established

Ingredients of gift i.e. offer, acceptance and delivery of possession were required to be proved by beneficiary if gift made in his favour was challenged

Written statement and evidence of defendants were silent as to how, when and in presence of whom suit property was gifted by the donor in their favour

Nothing was on record as to when and in whose presence offer was made, when it was accepted and when possession was handed over to the defendants by the donor

Ingredients of gift which allegedly led to attestation of disputed gift mutation were missing in the present case

Defendants had failed to prove the factum of gift in their favour in circumstances

Mutation of gift was required to be proved through credible and unimpeachable evidence as required by law

Ingredients of gift being not complete on the date of entry or attestation of mutation, mere assertion or supposition was not sufficient to reach a conclusion

If there was any settlement between the parties, defendants should have pleaded in the written statement and proved the same through evidence

Non-mentioning of factum of family settlement and non-leading of any evidence to prove thereof would lead an inference that there was no family settlement between the parties

Revision was allowed and suit was decreed in circumstances.

2018 YLR 1142 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 120Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 13Suit for declaration, injunction and partitionLimitationFamily settlementArbitration awardScope

Claim of ownership or share in the suit property which was never raised by the father of plaintiff in his lifetime could not be raised by one of his legal heirs after twelve years of his death

Share of plaintiff's father in the joint family business had not been handed over to him and his other legal heirs

Plaintiff had no title and right in the suit property and he had prayed for its partition

Validity

Plaintiff should have impleaded his other brothers and sisters as legal heirs of his deceased father and prayed for declaration of joint ownership which he had not done

Plaintiff was bound to explain as to how the relief sought by him in the present suit was within limitation

Present suit did not fall within the ambit of administration of property for which no limitation was applicable

Right to seek declaration of ownership accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1985; plaintiff should have approached the Housing Society within six years for mutation of his share in the record of said society

Limitation to claim ownership in the suit property had expired in July 1991

Right to sue for partition of immovable property would accrue only to the owner against co-owner irrespective of possession

Plaintiff was not owner of suit property and family settlement and arbitration award could not be enforced against lawful owner of immovable property

Mere construction on the suit property did not create right and interest adverse to the owner of said property

Law did not recognize possession of an immovable property as ownership rights

Ownership was dependent on the title document and not on mere residence/ possession of immovable property

Plaintiff had no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit

Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLR 1211 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 4Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 14Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 140Suit for possession through partitionFamily settlementScopePlaintiffs attempted to improve their case which was not permissible under the lawPlaintiffs had not mentioned any writing in the plaint with regard to private partition of suit propertyPrivate partition stated to have been effected between the parties was not reduced into writing

Had such document been in existence then a copy thereof would have been annexed to the plaint or reliance could have been made

Document of private partition was not put to the defendant or to any of his witnesses which had cast doubt on its genuineness

Both the courts below had rightly discarded said document of private partition

Family partition had taken place but same was never reduced into writing

Findings recorded by the courts below were not open to challenge when same were neither contrary to record nor offensive to the law

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2009 PLD 641 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

No right or interest in any property was being created or transferred in the family settlement but was only an acknowledgment and admission of the fact that the properties mentioned therein were the estate of the deceased father of the parties

Such settlement can always be arrived at orally, which can be subsequently acknowledged and translated through a written instrument and in such a situation, it needed no compulsory registration

Assuming that its registration was compulsory, yet the document could always be looked into and used for collateral purposes of finding out and locating the estate of the father, when it cannot be utilized as an instrument of division/partition thereof.

2005 SCMR 564 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Object behindInterpretation of family settlement by Court

­Principles.

2004 CLC 441 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Where parties settle a family dispute amicably take a share of property, enter into possession thereof and subsequently sell or mortgage land allotted to them, then they would be estopped from questioning such settlement

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114.

2002 CLC 649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. XXIII, R.3Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42Suit for declarationCompromise of suitFamily settlementMeaning and scope

Respondent earlier filed suit claiming that he being an adopted son of the deceased owner of the suit-land, was entitled to receive property of the deceased

Said suit was decreed on basis of compromise whereby petitioners accepted the claim of the respondent subject to the condition that respondent could not claim inheritance in the estate of the deceased

Plaintiffs who were widow and brother of the deceased brought suit for declaration against the respondent to the effect that alleged consent decree was the result of fraud and misrepresentation besides being unlawful

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court, but Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court holding that compromise arrived at between the parties would amount to a family settlement

Validity

Family settlement was an adjustment among the co-sharers with an object to preserve peace and amity between members of a family and had to be based upon legal and equitable considerations

If the family settlement was based upon an illegal consideration, same would itself become illegal and would not create any rights inter se the parties

Compromise arrived at between the parties could not be considered as a lawful family settlement and could not be given effect to as such

Compromise in violation of principle of law was illegal and ineffective and would not operate as estoppel against a party to that compromise

Judgment passed by Appellate Court below was set aside by High Court in revision.

1979 SCMR 630 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 12

Application-Rule 12, held, provides only for grant of rebate and not for refund of excise duty paid on exported goods.-[Interpretation of statutes]

1979 PLD 965 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Petitioner executing a document in lifetime of his father in favour of respondents with a view to set at rest conflicting claims by parties to suit land or to avoid future disputes on death of his father-Document, held, amounted to a family settlement arrived at between members for lawful consideration and fully binding on them and not merely a gratuitous admission liable to be withdrawn at any time.

1974 PLD 520 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Settlement does not amount to an alienation by one member to another (obiter).

1960 PLD 764 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Family Settlement

Benefit derived by parties by settlement, by itself good consideration for agreement of parties.

1947 PLD 329 PRIVY-COUNCIL Judicial Precedent

Deed-Family settlement - Construction-Whether deed conferred absolute interest or life interest.