Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Madras)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
K. Arumuga Velaiah – Appellant
Versus
P.R. Ramasamy and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2564 of 2012
Decided On : 27-01-2022
(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(e) – Registration of arbitration award – If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in person claiming relief, former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence – A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration under Section 17 (2) (v) – Test in such a case is whether document itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title – In present case, Arbitration Award was a mere arrangement to divide properties in future by metes and bounds as distinguished from an actual deed of partition – It is only a memorandum of understanding/family arrangement to be acted upon in future – Same did not require registration under Section 17 (1) (e) of Act. (Paras 23 and 24)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 11 – Bar of Res Judicata – Matter in issue, if it is one purely of fact, decided in earlier proceeding by a competent Court must in a subsequent litigation between same parties be regarded as finally decided and cannot be reopened – Partition of ancestral/joint family properties having found to have taken place in 1964 and same having been acted upon, a fresh suit for partition and separate possession of suit properties was not at all maintainable – Principle of res judicata squarely applies in present case – High Court was justified in affirming judgments of First Appellate Court as well as Trial Court dismissing suit filed by appellant – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 29 and 31)
(C) Precedent – An incorrect decision cannot be equated with a decision rendered without jurisdiction – Even a wrong decision can be superseded only through appeals to higher Tribunals or Courts or through review, if provided by law. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff in Original Suit No. 101 of 2004 has assailed judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No. 92 of 2007 by Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated 6th August, 2007 by which, the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No. 38 of 2005 by the First Appellate Court i.e. Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, affirming dismissal of the aforesaid suit by the District Munsiff Court, Devakottai has been sustained.
Findings of Court:
Award was not a document of title to the property hence it did not require registration. Therefore, Order dated 22nd August, 1975 passed in O.P. No. 7 of 1972 holding that award was inadmissible in evidence as it was not registered and hence a decree could not be passed, is incorrect.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A document of partition that stipulates a future division of properties is exempt from registration requirements. Such documents, including memoranda of understanding or family arrangements intended for future action, do not require registration under the relevant law (!) (!) .
Family arrangements or memoranda that do not create immediate rights or interests in specific immovable properties are admissible as evidence and do not need to be registered. The critical test is whether the document itself confers a direct interest or merely outlines future steps (!) (!) .
A family settlement or arrangement, especially when it is bona fide and intended to resolve disputes, is valid even if not registered, provided it does not create or transfer rights in specific properties at the time of execution (!) (!) .
An oral or written agreement that does not transfer ownership but only specifies future actions or divisions, which is bona fide and equitable, does not require registration and can be used to demonstrate the nature of possession or conduct of the parties (!) (!) .
The principle of res judicata applies when a matter has been finally decided in a competent court, and subsequent suits based on the same facts or issues are barred, even if there are alleged errors or irregularities in the prior judgments (!) (!) .
A prior judgment or finding that has attained finality, especially regarding the existence of a partition, is binding on the parties and prevents the filing of a subsequent suit on the same issue, unless the earlier decision was without jurisdiction or was void (!) (!) .
The validity of a family arrangement or partition does not depend solely on registration if it is a family arrangement or memorandum that does not create immediate rights but is intended for future implementation (!) (!) .
The law distinguishes between documents that create rights in specific properties and those that merely outline future steps or arrangements. Only the former require registration, while the latter are exempt (!) (!) .
Even erroneous decisions or decisions made without jurisdiction do not automatically nullify prior final judgments. Such decisions can be superseded only through appeals or review procedures (!) (!) .
When a family settlement has been acted upon and the parties have accepted its terms, they are estopped from resiling from it, and it is considered binding (!) (!) .
These points summarize the legal principles and findings related to family arrangements, partition documents, registration requirements, and the operation of res judicata as discussed in the document.
JUDGMENT :
B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.
1. The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 101 of 2004 has assailed the judgment and decree passed in Second Appeal No. 92 of 2007 by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Madras dated 6th August, 2007 by which, the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No. 38 of 2005 by the First Appellate Court i.e. Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai, affirming the dismissal of the aforesaid suit by the District Munsiff Court, Devakottai has been sustained.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. The case of the Plaintiff in a nutshell is stated as under:
(ii) According to the plaintiff, Periyaiya Servai had executed a registered will dated 26th January, 1994, in favour of the plaintiff in relation to his share of the properties of the joint family. Thus, the joint family properties had to be divided into four shares of which the plaintiff was entitled to one share, bequeathed in his favour by his grandfather, Periyaiya Servai under the will. Further, Poomayil, on the death of her husband Marimuthu had bequeathed his share in the property to the first defendant. Hence the first defendant has become entitled to half share in the joint family property and the remaining half has to be equally divided between the second defendant and the plaintiff. That the first defendant sent a legal notice objecting to plaintiff’s share in the suit schedule properties, which are joint family properties. Therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession.
(iii) Plaintiff has averred that he has a right to one-fourth share of Periyaiya Servai under the will dated 26th January, 1994, which came into operation on 25th March, 2003, on the demise of Periyaiya Servai. With the aforesaid averments the plaintiff has sought partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties.
4. In response to the plaint, first defendant filed his written statement which is encapsulated as under:
(1) A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration--Memorandum of understanding/family arrangement do not require registr....
Oral family settlements are valid and require no registration if acknowledged by all parties, and prior admissions bind parties in subsequent related suits.
Point of law : Family property - Settlement - Admission - Statement made in the earlier plaint constitutes an admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. Thus, the Plaintiffs would be bound by the said adm....
Oral partitions, while valid, must be substantiated by evidence, and unregistered documents regarding such partitions are inadmissible in court; res judicata applies to suits dismissed for default wi....
Existence of an unregistered family arrangement deed does not confer partition rights absent proper registration and stamp duty where required by law.
The court established that unregistered documents affecting rights in immovable property are inadmissible in evidence, and that joint family properties are subject to partition among all rightful hei....
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
