Concubine’s Long Cohabitation & Prior Settlement Can Sustain Property Rights Without Registration: P&H High Court Restores Trial Court Decree

Case Name: Tej Kaur (Deceased) through LRs and Another v. Gurdev Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs

Date of Judgment: 29 April 2026

Citation: RSA-1947-1995

Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a consent decree acknowledging a prior family arrangement or settlement in favour of a woman who had long cohabited with the respondent could not be treated as creating rights in immovable property for the first time so as to mandatorily require registration. The Court further held that the decree was not proved to be the result of fraud, impersonation, or misrepresentation, and restored the Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit.

Summary: The dispute arose from a suit filed by Gurdev Singh seeking declaration of ownership over agricultural land measuring 80 Kanals 6 Marlas and challenging an earlier consent decree dated 05.05.1984 suffered in favour of Tej Kaur. He alleged that Tej Kaur, who was allegedly only residing with him without a valid marriage, had fraudulently procured the decree by misleading him under the pretext of maintenance proceedings.

Gurdev Singh contended that he never appeared before the Court, never engaged counsel, and never consented to transfer of the property. He further argued that the decree was void for want of registration under the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act since it purportedly created rights in immovable property for the first time.

Tej Kaur, on the other hand, maintained that she had been residing with Gurdev Singh as his wife after dissolution of her earlier marriage and that the decree was voluntarily suffered by him. She denied all allegations of fraud and asserted that Gurdev Singh had consciously acknowledged her rights over the property.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the findings and decreed the suit in favour of Gurdev Singh, primarily holding that the decree had not been properly proved and that Tej Kaur had no pre-existing right in the property.

Allowing the Regular Second Appeal, the High Court held that the First Appellate Court had misappreciated both the evidence and settled principles of law. The Court noted that although the original judicial record had been destroyed in a fire, an independent Panchayat witness had categorically deposed that Gurdev Singh had appeared in Court and was identified in the earlier proceedings. The High Court held that such testimony could not be discarded lightly merely because the original records were unavailable.

The Court further observed that even though no valid legal marriage existed between Gurdev Singh and Tej Kaur, the material on record established prolonged cohabitation and acknowledgment of her status as wife in practical life, including documentary evidence such as ration cards and Gurdev Singh performing paternal obligations during the marriage of Tej Kaur’s son.

Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, the High Court reiterated that even a semblance of a pre-existing claim is sufficient to sustain a bona fide family settlement. The decree in favour of Tej Kaur was therefore treated as recognition of a prior arrangement rooted in love, affection, and long association, rather than a fresh transfer of property rights.

The Court also referred to decisions recognizing maintenance rights of concubines and women in long-standing domestic relationships, observing that equitable considerations cannot be ignored where a woman has spent considerable years maintaining and serving a man while being treated socially as his spouse.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the consent decree was neither fraudulent nor compulsorily registrable and restored the Trial Court decree dismissing the suit.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, and restored the Trial Court judgment dismissing the suit filed by Gurdev Singh. The Court held that the consent decree in favour of Tej Kaur represented recognition of a prior settlement and could not be invalidated on allegations of fraud or non-registration.