Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, N.V. Anjaria, JJ.
P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs – Appellant
Versus
A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2006
Decided On : 06-11-2025
(A) Property Law – Partition – A release by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately to divest his subsisting coparcenary interest; it does not depend for its efficacy on any further act of implementation – Silence in a later, separate memorandum does not undo a concluded, registered relinquishment inter partes, particularly when deed is produced from proper custody and stands unchallenged in cross-examination – An unregistered partition deed, may be relied upon for limited collateral purposes of proving severance of joint family status and title, explaining nature of possession, recording arrangement made thereunder, and evidencing parties subsequent conduct. (Paras 7.4 and 8.2)
(B) Hindu Law – Partition – Under Hindu law, severance of joint status can be brought about by unequivocal declaration reduced to writing or otherwise, and a writing evidencing such disruption is admissible to prove fact of disruption, arrangement, and character of subsequent possession – Family arrangement recorded in writing, when relied upon only to explain how parties thereafter held and enjoyed properties, does not require registration for that limited collateral use – Reality of disruption is tested by a cumulative assessment of conduct that includes separate possession, separate cultivation, separate residence, independent dealings with lands allotted, and revenue records that consistently reflect such separation – Where allotted lands are situated in different villages with distinct survey numbers, insistence on further partition as a precondition to infer disruption misdirects inquiry, because determinative question is whether joint status stood severed and subsequent enjoyment was separate – Properties acquired after 11.02.1972 do not form accretions to a subsisting coparcenary and fall to the acquirers separate estate, subject to any proven joint purchase. Daughters, who were not coparceners at the material time, do not obtain a coparcenary share by virtue of a disruption that took place before 2004 – Release-deeds held to be valid and admissible for collateral purposes of establishing severance of joint status with effect from 11.02.1972 and explaining nature of subsequent separate possession and enjoyment. (Paras 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
Questions that fall for determination are as follows:
I. Whether the registered release deeds dated 09.11.1956 (Ex.D-15) and 14.09.1967 are valid and binding, and if so, what is their legal effect on the membership and share entitlements of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 3.
II. Whether document dated 11.02.1972 styled as the palupatti can be relied upon for collateral purposes to establish severance of status as well as the nature of subsequent possession and enjoyment.
III. Consequent upon the answers to the above, what constitutes the partitionable estate and how the shares are to be worked out inter se the parties, including the treatment of Schedule “B” property and item No. 17 of “C” schedule and the extent to which the co-ownership of defendant No. 6 is to be preserved.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court shall draw the final decree by metes and bounds in conformity with this judgment. It shall demarcate shares over Schedule A and items 1 to 16 of Schedule C and shall separately give effect to equal moieties of defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 6 in Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C. Any pendente lite alienations touching Schedule B or item 17 of Schedule C shall abide these declarations and be considered, if required, in the final decree proceedings without disturbing the equal halves.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment addresses validity and binding effect of two registered release deeds Ex.D-15 (1956) and Ex.D-16 (1967) and their impact on coparcener membership and shares. (!) (!) - It considers whether the palupatti dated 11.02.1972 can be relied upon for collateral purposes to prove severance of joint status and subsequent possession. (!) (!) - It determines the partitionable estate and shares among parties, including treatment of Schedule A, Schedule B, Schedule C (item 17), and the rights of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6, with exclusions for those severed by releases. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of family and partition claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. analysis of release deeds and family arrangements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. final judgment and directives for trial court. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1) The present civil appeal arises from the final judgment and decree dated 30 August 2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 750 of 1994 (hereinafter, “impugned judgment”), whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and preliminary decree dated 19 August 1994 rendered by the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, in Original Suit No. 146 of 1987 decreeing a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The appellants before this Court are the legal heirs of late P. Anjanappa, who was arrayed as defendant no. 5 before the Trial Court, and for ease of reference the parties shall hereinafter be described by their status before the Trial Court, with the appellants being referred to as defendant no. 5.
2) The facts giving rise to the present case are set out hereafter.
2.1. The parties trace their lineage to one Pillappa, who is stated to be the common ancestor. His widow Muniyamma was arrayed as defendant no. 1 before the Trial Court. The plaintiffs pleaded that Pillappa had four sons, namely plaintiff no. 1 A. P. Nanjundappa, plaintiff no. 2 Venkataswamappa, defendant no. 3 Sreeramappa, and defendant no. 5 P. Anjanappa, and five daughters, namely plaintiff no. 3 Narayanamma, plaintiff no. 4 Sonnamma, plaintiff no. 5 Anjanamma, and defendant no. 4 Lakshmamma, besides one daughter who had predeceased and whose branch was represented in the suit as defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 6 Muniswamappa is the husband of plaintiff no. 3 and is not a member of the joint family. Defendant no. 7 is a lessee in respect of certain items of the suit properties. The other defendants are members of the wider family as reflected in the array of parties.
2.2. The suit schedule properties comprised of three parts. Schedule “A” described immovable properties said to have originally belonged to Pillappa and thereafter to have continued as joint family properties in the hands of the coparcenary comprising the parties to the suit. Schedule “B” described immovable properties purchased under a registered sale deed dated 25 April 1974 in the joint names of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6. Schedule “C” described movables, including, inter alia, an item representing amounts realised by way of rent from the Schedule “B” properties.
2.3. The plaintiffs’ case, in brief, was that Schedule “A” properties were joint family properties liable to partition and that Schedule “B” properties, though standing in the joint names of defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6, had been acquired from and blended with the income of the joint family and were therefore also subject to partition. It was further asserted that defendant no. 7 had been inducted as yearly lessee in respect of items comprised in Schedule “B” and that defendant no. 5 had collected the lease amounts, which were liable to be brought to account as part of Schedule “C”. The plaint also adverted to certain agricultural operations, including a casuarina plantation, and claimed accounting of the proceeds.
2.4. Defendant no. 5 contested the suit. His principal defences, as pleaded were: that plaintiff no. 2 had during the lifetime of Pillappa executed a registered release deed; that defendant no. 3 had, in the year 1967, executed a registered release deed relinquishing his rights in the joint family properties; and that after the death of Pillappa in the year 1969 there had been, on 11 February 1972, a partition between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 in the presence of panchayatdars, recorded in a palupatti (‘Palupatti’ means partition deed or a family settlement agreement) pursuant to which they had been in separate possession and enjoyment and separate entries
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
