Back
A.M.SAPRE, S.ABDUL NAZEER
SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA PRASAD – Respondent
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 Naraya
[No cases identified as overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The provided case law list contains no language indicating that Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad, (2018) 7 SCC 646 (or any cited variant) has been overruled, reversed, abrogated, or declared per incuriam. All references treat the decision with positive or neutral authority.]
[Cases in this category contain phrases indicating positive adoption, application, or endorsement of the principles from Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad, (2018) 7 SCC 646 without any qualification or limitation.]
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED GANGABEN MOTIJI THAKOR W/O AMAJI HOTHIJI THAKOR VS MANEKLAL ISHWARLAL PATEL - 2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 1220, LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED GANGABEN MOTIJI THAKOR W/O AMAJI HOTHIJI THAKOR VS MANEKLAL ISHWARLAL PATEL - 2018 0 Supreme(Guj) 1223: Described as "very recent pronouncement" and used to support similar factual analysis; language: "the Supreme Court in a very recent pronouncement..."
Pushpalatha N. V. , W/o. Sri. Nemraj VS V. Padma, Widow of Vasanta Kumar D. N. - 2018 0 Supreme(Kar) 875: Explicitly states the Court "has taken the same view"; language: "has taken the same view which is as follows"
Master Abeer Singh VS Savita Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(HP) 32, Master Abeer Singh VS Savita Sharma - 2019 0 Supreme(HP) 86: States the Apex Court "has held that"; applied directly to factual scenario.
SUDDU RAM VS KAMLESH KUMAR - 2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 256: States the Supreme Court "has clearly held that"; language indicates affirmative application.
Baijnath (dead) through LRs. VS Gwalior Land Deals and Finance, Lashkar - 2019 0 Supreme(MP) 546: Uses the case for direct quotation of operative paragraph 17; language: "has held as under"
Sandeep Singh VS Pratap Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 768: Counsel "strongly relied upon" and court engages with the judgment without criticism; language: "strongly relied upon"
Arshnoor Singh VS Harpal Kaur - 2019 6 Supreme 307: Court states it "has recently held that"; language: "this Court has recently held that"
Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel VS Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1065: Counsel "referred to" and "reliance is also placed upon"; treated as authoritative on self-acquired property of grandfather.
Sanjiv K. Singh VS Ritu Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1874: Contrasted with another case (Sunil Kumar) but Shyam Narayan Prasad is presented as supporting authority on inheritance character.
Govindan VS Revathi - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2391, Bhola Singh VS Preetam Singh (since Dead) - 2020 0 Supreme(MP) 928: Cited as having "been further followed"; language: "has been further followed by the Apex Court in recent judgment"
Ismailbee VS Mehtab Saheb - 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1673: "In a similar set of facts a question came before" implying consistency; used to address deed of exchange.
AARSHIYA GULATI (MINOR) THR. NEXT FRIEND VS KULDEEP SINGH GULATI - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 379: Referenced alongside Amar & Ors. as part of Supreme Court authority; treated as binding precedent.
VIDYAWATI VS RAM JANKI - 2019 0 Supreme(All) 517, Dayabati Das VS Meera Das - 2019 0 Supreme(Cal) 472, Madangopal VS Sagar - 2019 0 Supreme(Raj) 972, Munni Bai VS Ramdayal - 2021 0 Supreme(MP) 115, K. P. Subburaj VS V. Prabhakar - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 627, V. Periyasamy (Died) VS Minor Sivasubramaniam - 2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 1062: Directly quoted or relied upon for ancestral/coparcenary property principles.
Sheela VS Amartya - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2555, Sheela VS Amartya - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2290, Manju Tiwari VS Arun Kumar Tiwari - 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 297: Counsel reliance and court reference without qualification; extracted paragraphs applied.
Gurnam Singh VS Bant Singh - 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 256: Cited as authority; language: "has also relied upon a judgment"
Bhukharam VS Suraj Kumar - 2020 0 Supreme(Chh) 409: Paragraphs extracted for application; similar to other followed citations.
Sri Krishna Pandey son of Ram Nagina Pandey VS Ram Nagina Pandey son of Jagarnath Pandey - 2020 0 Supreme(Pat) 466: Multiple internal references; decision used for inheritance analysis.
PRS Hospital Killipalam, Thiruvananthapuram VS P. Anil Kumar S/o Prabhakaran - 2020 0 Supreme(Ker) 883: Used for pleadings principle; language: "As held by the Supreme Court"
Somepalli Govindu VS Madikiri Rajamani - Andhra Pradesh (2022), V. Subbamma VS Sure Butchamma - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 62: Reliance noted; court engages with judgment as relevant authority.
Ramdas S/o Ghasiyadas VS Nohar Das S/o Jandhir Das Mahant - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 212, Balram S/o Bodhram VS Bugali Bai D/o Allu - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 188, Janakram S/o Parmanand VS Tejram S/o Late Diwakar - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 189: Paragraphs 18–22 or 17–18 extracted for application.
Veerasangayya S/o Gadigayya Mulimath VS Veerupakshayya S/o Irayya Ganachari - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 561: Paragraphs 22–23 extracted; language: "has held as under"
Karan Lal, S/o. Shri Tularam Malagar VS State of Chhattisgarh - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 103: Paragraph 12 extracted; language: "has held at paragraph 12 as under"
Ajay Kumar Garg VS Avyaay Anirudh Garg - 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 2000: Court notes the decision; language: "Shyam Narayan Prasad is also noted"
Sumitra Ashokbhai Patel, Decd VS Rameshbhai Fakirbhai Patel - 2022 0 Supreme(Guj) 1136: Relied upon by both counsel and court; described as "supra".
D. T. Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah (Died) VS Kamakshi Bai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3810, D. T. Rajkapoor Sah @ Raghul Sah (Died) VS Kamakshi Bai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3794, Basavaraj Shivappa Meti VS Premabai - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 1342, Raju VS Sanjay - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 2152, Legal Heirs Of Deceased Fakirchand Ambaram Patel VS O. L. of M/s. Shri Amruta Mills Ltd. - 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 197, Raju VS Sanjay @ Nana - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 857, Laxman Tiwari, S/o Shankar Prasad Tiwari VS Chandrakali, W/o. Late Chiraunji Lal Gupta - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 426, Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited VS Amit Chand Mitra - 2023 6 Supreme 643, Nanjappa VS Mahimakka - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 1134, Nawabuddin VS Shaffiulla @ Raja - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 5645, Bandaru Venugopala Rao VS Allure Anasuya - 2024 0 Supreme(AP) 284, Kailash Narayan S/o Jagannath Prasad Bhargava VS Shyamlata W/o Brijmohan - 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 42, R. C. Church VS Seeranga Gounder - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1066, R. C. Church VS Seeranga Gounder - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 2180, M. S. Ananthamurthy VS J. Manjula Etc - 2025 3 Supreme 93, Padam Jain, S/o Shri Gyanmal Jain vs Hemrai (Died) Through Legal Heirs - 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 534, Parth Ghorpade, S/O Indrajeet D. Ghorpade VS Indrajeet D. Ghorpade, S/O Late D. B. Ghorpade - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 592, KARUNAGAPPALLY COIR VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED VS SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI RAMACHANDRAN NAMBOODIRI - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1557, Angadi Chandranna VS Shankar - 2025 5 Supreme 99, Ashok Lulla vs Ramesh Lulla - 2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 112, Uraran Das Banjare S/o Firtu Banjare vs Sukhbai W/o Kanwal Das - 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 359, Mahadev, S/o. Ghasiram vs Sonau Ram, S/o. Dharmu - 2025 0 Supreme(Chh) 312, Arun S/o Narayanrao Kale vs Sau. Meena w/o Kishore Maliye - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1856, C.S. Senthilkumar vs R. Komalavalli - 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 697, Narayan S/o Late Shri Ransai Gonda VS Guranjan (Dead) through LRs. Shiva Charan - 2023 0 Supreme(Chh) 72, Sou Pushpa Parashram Marihalkar vs Amit S/O. Ajit Padmannavar - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 976, Ramdas S/o Ghasiyadas VS Nohar Das S/o Jandhir Das Mahant - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 212, J Santhakumari, (Died) (Legal Heirs Recorded) Kunnuvilakathu Veedu VS Mohanan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1022, Balaso Bhimgonda Patil VS State of Maharashtra - Bombay (2024), Vasumathi VS R. Vasudevan - Current Civil Cases (2024), Vasumathi VS R. Vasudevan - Madras (2024), Lakshman Reddy, S/o. Late Govinda Reddy VS G. Danamma, W/o. Jayaramreddy - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 613, Palanichamy vs Muthu - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 58897, Vasumathi vs R.Vasudevan - 2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 40310, Alamelu VS Palanisamy Gounder (Died) - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1956, SOU PUSHPA PARASHRAM MARIHALKAR vs SRI AMIT S/O. AJIT PADMANNAVAR - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23465, Sri Somashekar vs SMT. Sunanda - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41566, Pushpa Jagannath Shetty vs Sahaj Ankur Realtors - 2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 119, V.K.RATHNAVALLI vs V.K.MOHANAKRISHNAN - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3443, Manimegalai vs Bakkiyam - 2026 0 Supreme(Mad) 441, Manimegalai vs Bakkiyam - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8529, Saraswathi (died) vs Palani - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26428, Chandrika Roy vs Union of India - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4949, Rohit Chauhan VS Surinder Singh - 2013 5 Supreme 666: All references are either direct reliance for ancestral property/coparcenary/registration principles or direct extraction of paragraphs; language includes "has recently held," "has held," "reliance is placed," "relied upon," or "as held by."
[Cases or references where the decision is cited but noted as distinguishable or not applicable to the present facts. These references do not criticize the correctness of the precedent but limit its application.]
Shashidhar VS Ashwini Uma Mathad - 2024 6 Supreme 153: Court explicitly states that Shyam Narayan Prasad (supra) "is not applied to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand" and "are distinguishable"; treated as non-binding on facts presented.
J Santhakumari, (Died) (Legal Heirs Recorded) Kunnuvilakathu Veedu VS Mohanan - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1022: Referenced in context of joint family disruption but court uses it to differentiate factual matrix rather than apply directly.
[No cases fall into this category. All entries contain identifiable language of judicial engagement (reliance, following, distinction, or citation) that permits categorization based on the explicit keywords required by the instructions.]
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
