The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the implications of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 on unregistered documents in property disputes.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 27.2.2004. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has dismissed the suit for partition and injunction filed by the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs, in the suit were the minor children of Sh. Daya Chand, the deceased son of Sh. Ballu Ram/defendant No.1. Suit was filed through their mother-Smt. Sarita. The basic cause of action pleaded in the plaint was the entitlement to share in the suit property admeasuring 25 sq. yds. bearing No.7/429, Trilok Puri, Delhi on the ground that the property was an ancestral property, however this plea of the appellants/plaintiffs has been disbelieved by the trial Court which also holds that the suit property stands validly transferred to a third party, namely, Sh. Ram Bharosay/defendant No.5/respondent No.5.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed the subject suit for partition and injunction pleading that the suit property was originally owned by one Smt. Sukhbiri Devi and the same was purchased by defendant No.1/Sh. Ballu Ram by the usual documents dated 12.2.1986 being the agreement to sell, general power of attorney, receipt, affidavit and the Will. The Will and receipt are registered documents. It was further pleaded in the plaint that though the suit property was in the name of defendant No.1, the same was an ancestral property and therefore the plaintiffs as the legal heirs of one son of Sh. Ballu Ram were entitled to 1/3rd share. It was additionally pleaded in the plaint that there was a partition deed dated 21.4.1998 whereby the suit property was divided into three equal shares. One share (ground floor) fell to Daya Chand, father of the plaintiffs, another share (first floor) fell to Sh. Jai Chand, defendant No.2 and the third share (second floor) fell to Sh. Kishan Chand, defendant No.4, all of whom were sons of Sh. Ballu Ram. Since the defendants/respondents are stated to have refused to partition the suit property, the subject suit came to be filed.

3. The respondents/defendants contested the suit. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed one written statement and defendant No.5, the subsequent purchaser filed another written statement. Defendant No.1, Sh. Ballu Ram is the father of Sh. Daya Chand (father of the plaintiffs), Jai Chand-defendant No.2 and defendant No.4, Sh. Kishan Chand. Defendant No.3 was the wife of defendant No.2. In the written statements, plea of the defendants was that the property was not an ancestral property inasmuch as Sh. Ballu Ram had purchased the suit plot from his retirement funds and the same was constructed thereafter upon by the defendant No.2. It was pleaded that there was no partition deed as claimed by the appellants/plaintiffs and in fact if the same existed (inasmuch as the mother of the appellants had taken away a valuable box while leaving the matrimonial home) the same would be a forged and fabricated document. Partition deed was also pleaded to be void for lack of registration. It was pleaded that relationship between the mother of the appellants and their father were not on sound footing and the mother of the appellants, Smt. Sarita had left the company of her husband-Sh. Daya Chand i.e. father of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that though initially Sh. Daya Chand had gone away from the suit house alongwith his wife Smt. Sarita but thereafter he returned back and continued to stay in the suit property with the defendant Nos.1 to 4 till the time of his death. It was further pleaded that the original owner, Smt. Sukhbiri had subsequently executed documents being the agreement to sell, general power of attorney and receipt all dated 14.8.1986 transferring the suit property to defendant No.2, and which transfer was made with the consent of defendant No.1/father-Sh. Ballu Ram. The defendant No.2 has thereafter d