1973 Supreme(Mad) 230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. Ismail and Natarajan, JJ.
C.S. Kumaraswami Goundar .. .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Aravagiri Goundar and another .. .....Respondent(s)
Appeal No. 955 of 1966.
Decided On : 10 April 1973
K. Parasaran, for Appellant.
K. Doraiswami, for 1st Respondent.
K. Sarvbhauman, and A. K. Kumaraswami, for 2nd Respondent.
Meaning of expression "Collateral transaction".
Headnote:Registration Act, 1908-Sections 17 (i) (b) and 49-Unregistered document not admissible in evidence-Only admissible for collateral purpose.
2. As against this the first defendant filed a written statement putting forward the contention that the partition, dated 24th November, 1924 was a full and complete partition and that therefore the appellant had no right to go back upon the same. He also put forward an alternative contention that, in any event, he had acquired title to the properties allotted to the share of Nallaswami Goundan under Exhibit B-1 by adverse possession. With regard to the claim put forward by the appellant, that the order of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in C.C. No. 434 of 1953 had decided that the appellant also had a share in the compensation amount, he contended that the said decision was not rendered on merits and to which he himself was not a party and that therefore it was not binding on him.
3. The second defendant filed a separate written statement putting forward a similar contention, namely, that the partition, dated 24th November, 1924 was a complete and final partition, that pursuant to the partition the parties had taken possession of the respective items of properties allotted to them, that they had been in complete and absolute enjoyment of those properties, and that survey No. 122/B was dealt with by Nallaswami Goundan pursuant to the partition, which had ultimately come to the second defendant after a series of alienations.
4. It is on these pleadings that the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the deed dated 24th November, 1924 mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint was never intended to be a final partition between the brothers?
2. In any event, whether the partition dated 24th November, 1924 has been acted upon, and, if so, whether the plaintiff is estopped from going back upon it?
3. Whether the pla