The court reaffirmed that for a valid partition among joint family properties, proper registration and absence of fraud are crucial, emphasizing joint possession and familial rights.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. This second appeal is filed against the divergent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court wherein the Trial Court granted the relief of partition and the First Appellate Court reversed the finding the Trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and they are having half share in the suit schedule properties. Thus, entitled for the relief of partition. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending that already there was a partition between the plaintiffs and defendants’ family as on 03.11.1972 with respect to the ancestral properties and further contend that the earlier partition was made through an unregistered document and hence, subsequently, a registered partition deed was also came into existence on 21.12.2004. The defendants contend that the Court fee paid is insufficient. Defendant No.1 also took the contention that land bearing Sy.No.128/5 is his self-acquired property and the same was granted in his favour. The plaintiffs would contend that registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 is a fraudulent document and not binding on them.

3. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, framed the following Issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are having half share in the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether defendant proves that there was already oral partition was held between plaintiffs and defendants family dated 13.11.1972 with respect to the ancestral properties?

3. Whether plaintiffs prove that registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 is a fraudulent document and not binding on them?

4. Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient?

5. Whether defendant proves that land Sy.No.128/5 is his self acquired property?

6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought by them?

7. What order or decree?

Additional Issue No.1

Whether defendant father proves that there was a registered partition deed dated 21.12.2004 between himself and father of the plaintiff?

4. The Trial Court allowed the parties to lead their evidence to substantiate their contention. Accordingly the plaintiffs examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P22. On the other hand, defendants examined 4 witnesses as DW1 to DW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D11. The Trial Court having appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that there was no partition of the year 1972 and suit item No.5 is also a joint family property of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the said grant is for the benefit of all the joint family members of the plaintiffs and defendants and the same is not a self-acquired property as contented by defendant No.1. The Trial Court did not accept the contention of the defendant that earlier there was a partition on 03.11.1972 and the same was not having any legal sanctity for want of registration and alleged registered partition in the family of plaintiffs and defendants dated 21.12.2004 is also not binding on the plaintiffs which was created without consent and signature of the plaintiffs subsequent to cut-off date 20.12.2004 as per Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005.

5. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documental evidence placed on record partly decreed the suit granting 1/3^rd share plus 1/8^th sha