Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD – APPELLANT
VERSUS
KRISHNA PRASAD AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5415 OF 2011
Decided on : 02-07-2018
(1975) 1 SCC 160; (2009) 15 SCC 184; (2013) 9 SCC 419 – Relied upon
(b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 118 r/w section 49, Registration Act, 1908 and Section 91, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Exchange deed involving RCC building also having value more than Rs.100 –Attracting section 54 relating to sale of property – Deed compulsorily registrable – Such deed not admissible in evidence unless registered – Such document can neither be proved under section 91 nor any oral evidence can be given to prove its contents – High Court discarding the exchange deed. (Para 18, 20, 22)
(1988) 2 SCR 1106 – Relied upon
(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – No pleading about taking possession in part performance of a contract – Section 53A not attracted in absence of such pleading. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
The family property was partitioned on 31.7.1987 between Gopalji and his five sons, namely, Laxmi Prasad, Ayodhya Prasad, Shyam Narayan Prasad, Dr. Onkarnath Gupta and Suresh Kumar. In the partition Gopalji has retained some of the properties for his personal use till his death. Laxmi Prasad got his share of property along with half portion of existing two-storey RCC building situated at Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim, wherein presently a liquor shop is being run. Shyam Narayan Prasad was allotted a shoe shop at Manihari which is run on a rented premises owned by Gouri Shankar Prasad. He was also allotted other properties in the partition.
After the partition, the sons of Gopalji were put in possession of their share of the properties. However, Laxmi Prasad (defendant No.2) in collusion with his brother Shyam Narayan Prasad (defendant No.1) executed an agreement dated 30.1.1990 exchanging the liquor shop at Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim with the shoe shop at Manihari. It is their contention that since the property is an ancestral property, they also have a share in the property which had fallen to the share of defendant No.2 and that he has no legal right to exchange the property with defendant No.1. It was further contented that the deed of exchange dated 30.1.1990 entered into between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is in relation to an immovable property. Since the said document has not been registered, it has no legal effect.
The suit was decreed.
The District Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed a Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the District Judge before the High Court. The High Court has set aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
It cannot be said that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The share of property obtained by a coparcener through partition is considered ancestral property with respect to male issue. This means that male descendants have a right to this property by birth, and it retains its character as ancestral property even after partition (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
A deed that is required to be registered under law, particularly when it involves immovable property valued above a certain threshold, is not admissible as evidence unless it is registered. Such unregistered documents cannot be proved through Section 91 of the Evidence Act or oral evidence, and the law mandates registration for validity and enforceability (!) (!) (!) .
In the absence of a pleading indicating possession in part performance of a contract, Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable. Proper pleadings are essential to invoke this section, and without such pleadings, the benefit of Section 53A cannot be claimed (!) (!) .
The legal character of property—whether ancestral or self-acquired—depends on the facts and deeds of partition. Properties allotted to a coparcener in partition that are ancestral in nature continue to be coparcenary property, and the rights of male descendants in such property are preserved (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The mode of transfer of property through exchange requires a registered instrument if the property involved is immovable and valued above Rs. 100. An unregistered exchange deed cannot be used as evidence to prove transfer of ownership of immovable property, and the law explicitly bars its admissibility (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the best evidence of the contents of a document is the document itself. If a document required to be registered is not registered, it cannot be produced as evidence, and secondary evidence is inadmissible. This ensures the integrity and authenticity of property transfer documents (!) (!) .
The benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act requires that the defendant plead that possession has been taken in part performance of a contract. Without such a plea, the defendant cannot claim protection or invoke this section (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the principles of property law, the importance of proper registration, and procedural requirements for asserting rights related to property transactions.
JUDGMENT :
S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Defendant No.1, Shyam Narayan Prasad is the appellant before us. In this appeal he has questioned the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Sikkim in RSA No.1 of 2005.
2. One Gopalji Prasad is the common male ancestor of the parties. The appellant and Laxmi Prasad, 5th respondent herein, are the sons of Gopalji Prasad. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of Laxmi Prasad and respondent No.4 is the son of the 1st respondent. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are the plaintiffs in the suit, being Civil Suit No.10 of 2001, and the appellant and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the defendants. No relief has been claimed against respondent No.6 (defendant No.3 in the suit). For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by the ranking in the trial court.
3. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit against the defendants for a declaration that the document dated 30.1.1990 (Exhibit P2) executed between defendant Nos. 1 and 2 is invalid and for certain other reliefs. According to them, the family property was partitioned on 31.7.1987 between Gopalji and his five sons, namely, Laxmi Prasad, Ayodhya Prasad, Shyam Narayan Prasad, Dr. Onkarnath Gupta and Suresh Kumar. In the partition Gopalji has retained some of the properties for his personal use till his death. Laxmi Prasad got his share of property along with half portion of existing two-storey RCC building situated at Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim, wherein presently a liquor shop is being run. Shyam Narayan Prasad was allotted a shoe shop at Manihari which is run on a rented premises owned by Gouri Shankar Prasad. He was also allotted other properties in the partition.
4. After the partition, the sons of Gopalji were put in possession of their share of the properties. However, Laxmi Prasad (defendant No.2) in collusion with his brother Shyam Narayan Prasad (defendant No.1) executed an agreement dated 30.1.1990 exchanging the liquor shop at Singtam Bazar, East Sikkim with the shoe shop at Manihari. It is their contention that since the property is an ancestral property, they also have a share in the property which had fallen to the share of defendant No.2 and that he has no legal right to exchange the property with defendant No.1. It was further contented that the deed of exchange dated 30.1.1990 entered into between defendant Nos.1 and 2 is in relation to an immovable property. Since the said document has not been registered, it has no legal effect.
5. Defendant No.1 has filed the written statement stating that the suit properties are not ancestral properties. He has denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the document dated 30.1.1990 is not a valid document. It was further contended that the said document has already been given effect from the date of its execution.
6. Defendant No. 2 has filed the written statement contending that for the alleged exchange deed, defendant No. 1 had approached him for exchanging only the business of liquor shop at Sikkim with that of shoe shop at Gangtok for convenience and that he had signed the document in good faith believing that the exchange deed was only for the two businesses, and further, admitted that exchange deed was made and executed behind the back of the plaintiffs.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed relevant issues. Parties have led evidence in support of their respective contentions. On appreciation of the materials on record, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the property in question is an ancestral property and that the plaintiffs being the sons and grandson of defendant No.2, they have also equal share in the property allotted to him in the partition. The suit was accordingly decreed.
8. The first defendant challenged the said judgment and decree by filing an Appeal No.2 of 2003 before the District Judge, Sub-Division-II, Sikkim at Gangtok. The District Judge by judgment and decree dated 19.11.2004 allowed th
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
