Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Yellapu Uma Maheswari & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Buddha Jagadheeswararao & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8441 of 2015 Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12788 OF 2014
Decided on : 08-10-2015
(b) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 and 49 – Exhibits B-21 and B-22 – Relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property – Exhibits B-21 and B-22 therefore compulsorily registerable u/s 17(i)(b) – Being unregistered, inadmissible in evidence in terms of section 49. (Para 17)
(c) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 49 – Exhibits B-21 and B-22 – Unregistered document – Suit for partition – Documents can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares – Cannot be relied upon for primary purpose of partition i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds – The documents, for marking for collateral purpose, required to be properly stamped and impounded – Trial Court would then be at liberty to mark Exhibits B-21 and B-22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance. (Para 18)
AIR 1969 A.P. (242) – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
One Jaggayya, foster father of the plaintiff, had acquired certain properties during his life time and executed a Registered Will dt. 22/05/1964 bequeathing his immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and 1st defendant/appellant No.1 by giving life estate in favour of his wife Mahalakshmamma, and the said Mahalakshmamma died on 20/05/2001, as such plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant Nos.1 & 2/appellants became entitled to the plaint Schedule properties in equal shares. On his demand, when the defendants failed to partition the properties by giving him his legitimate right, he has approached the Court by filling the partition suit.
According to the appellants herein (Defendant Nos.1 & 2) in the year 1969 properties were partitioned between the parties.
The appellant No.1/defendant No.1 filed her chief examination affidavit and sought to mark Exhibits B1 to B 48.The plaintiff/respondent No.1 raised objection with regard to admissibility of Exhibits B-21 and B-22. Exhibit B-21, dated 05/06/1975 according to the defendant/appellant is Deed of Memorandum witnessing earlier partition effected between the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant No.1/appellant No.1. Exhibit B-22 is the Agreement dated 04/06/1975 entered between Late Mahalakshammma, plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant No.1/appellant No.1.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court came to a conclusion that two recitals i.e. Exhibit B21 and Exhibit B22 are not evidencing the past transaction, but they prima facie disclose the partition of the property and relinquishment of rights by one of the parties. As such, both documents require stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and registration under the Registration Act, 1908. As Exhibits B21 and B22 are unregistered and unstamped documents, they are not admissible in evidence. The Trial Court gave a specific finding that even both the exhibits are not admissible for collateral purpose also.
Finding of the Court:
In a partition suit unregistered document can be relied for severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for division of joint properties by metes and bounds.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Key Points: - The nature and substance of a document is determined by its terms and recitals, not its nomenclature or pleadings of the party introducing it. (!) [1000572160016] - Exhibits B-21 and B-22 involve relinquishment of rights in immovable property, making them compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and inadmissible for proving partition without registration per Section 49. [1000572160015][1000572160016] - Unregistered documents in a partition suit cannot be used for division of joint properties by metes and bounds (primary purpose) but can be relied upon for collateral purposes like severancy of title and nature of possession of shares. [1000572160017] - For collateral use, unregistered and unstamped documents must be properly stamped, impounded, and subject to proof and relevance. [1000572160017][1000572160018] - Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits B-21 and B-22 entirely; appeal partly allowed to permit marking for collateral purpose after compliance. [1000572160008][1000572160018] - Section 49 proviso allows unregistered documents as evidence of collateral transactions not requiring registration. (!) [1000572160017]
JUDGMENT :
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This Appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in CRP No. 3419 of 2013, dt. 27/12/2013 wherein and whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the Appellants/Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 by confirming the orders passed in O. S No. 10 of 2004, dt. 08/07/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.
3. The brief facts which are necessary for adjudicating the dispute involved in the present appeal, in nutshell, are as follows.
4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S No. 10 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Anakapalle against the appellants and others for the relief of partition claiming ¼th share in Item No. 1, ½ share in Item No. 2 of the suit schedule properties.
5. It is the specific case of the1st respondent/plaintiff that one Jaggayya, who is the foster father of the plaintiff, had acquired certain properties during his life time and executed a Registered Will dt. 22/05/1964 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and 1st defendant/appellant No.1 by giving life estate in favour of his wife Mahalakshmamma, and the said Mahalakshmamma died on 20/05/2001, as such plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant Nos.1 & 2/appellants became entitled to the plaint Schedule properties in equal shares. On his demand, when the defendants failed to partition the properties by giving him his legitimate right, he has approached the Court by filling the above suit.
6. The appellants herein (Defendant Nos.1 & 2) resisting the plea of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed the written statement that appellant No. 1 being the sister’s daughter of Mahalakshamma and the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 who is the sister’s son of late Jaggayya were treated as foster son and daughter as Jaggayya had no issues. In the year 1969 properties were partitioned between the parties. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1, in spite of having his share in the properties, taking advantage of appellant No.1’s innocence and helplessness, has taken other properties which are not allotted to him, having no other go she (appellant No.1) kept quiet. According to the defendants/appellants, after the partition they have been enjoying the properties fell to their respective shares. It is their further case that on 05-6-1975 plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the first defendant/appellant No. 1 got executed the Deed of Memorandum of earlier partition. Both the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the 1st defendant/appellant No.1 were given pattadar passbooks and title deeds in respect of properties fell to their share and in fact, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has alienated some of his properties. Mahalakshsamma in a sound and disposing state of mind executed a Registered Will dated 27/03/1999 bequeathing all the properties in favour of 1st defendant/appellant No.1. Further, Mahalkshamma has given away her life estate in favour of appellant No.1/defendant No.1 and the plaintiff/respondent No.1. Hence, it is pleaded that as properties were already partitioned in the year 1969, the question of again partitioning the properties does not arise and sought for dismissal of the Suit.
7. The appellant No.1/defendant No.1 filed her chief examination affidavit and sought to mark Exhibits B1 to B 48.The plaintiff/respondent No.1 raised objection with regard to admissibility of Exhibits B-21 and B-22. Exhibit B-21, dated 05/06/1975 according to the defendant/appellant is Deed of Memorandum witnessing earlier partition effected between the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant No.1/appellant No.1. Exhibit B-22 is the Agreement dated 04/06/1975 entered between Late Mahalakshammma, plaintiff/respondent No.1 and the defendant No.1/appellant No.1.
8. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 took objection with regard to admissibility of Exhibits B-21 and B-22 on the ground that whole
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
