The judgment established the requirement of registration for partition documents under Section 17 of the Registration Act and clarified the limitations of possessory title in obtaining a decree in ejectment against co-owners.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This is an appeal by the defendant against a decree directing his ejectment from the suit property and the delivery thereof to the respondent. The appellant and the respondent are two out of five brothers who originally formed a joint Hindu family. Two of the brothers separated in June, 1930, and the appellant and the respondent and one Subba Rao continued joint till 20th May, 1932, on which date the properties held by them jointly till then were divided between them under the document marked as Ex. A. The respondents case was that the property in suit was among the properties allotted to his share under this document and that the appellant unlawfully trespassed upon it shortly before the suit.

2. The document which is described as list of shares of immovable property equally divided on 20th May, 1932, among these three individuals, namely, etc., recites:

We, namely, our five brothers effected partition previously, that is, on 16th June, 1930, and we were keeping our three shares jointly up till now and managing the same. We have now mixed the property pertaining to our three shares together and have again effected division of the same with reference to good and bad qualities through mediators as follows.

Then follow the lists of properties allotted to each sharer who has signed at the end of his list. A "remark" at the end provides:

That each of us should with full rights, enjoy the trees and fruit trees which are in his lands, that each should pay circar taxes for the lands pertaining to (his) respective share and that each should enjoy his respective share with rights of alienation by way of gift and sale.

And the document as a whole is signed by all the three brothers and attested by two witnesses and the writer. It is thus clear that the document purports to effect a partition of the properties comprised therein between the three brothers and it is admitted by the appellants own witnesses that the allotment under it was intended to be final.

3. It was argued for the appellant that this document (Ex. A) not having been registered, was inadmissible to prove the allotment of the suit property to the respondent, and that as the latter based his title only on Ex. A, his suit was bound to fail. The Court below has repelled this contention on two grounds. First, it has held relying upon the oral evidence in the case that it was intended that there should be another comprehensive partition deed executed subsequently when the movables and outstandings belonging to the family were to be divided, incorporating therein the allotment of the immovable properties made under Ex. A, and that therefore the partition under Ex. A could not be treated as a final partition and did not require registration. This view cannot be accepted, for, as already observed, it is not disputed that the allotment of the immovable properties under Ex. A was intended to be final. The mere fact that the parties contemplated the execution of a more comprehensive partition deed later on does not make Ex. A any the less operative to create interests in the immovable properties comprised therein. It cannot therefore be said that Ex. A does not require registration. It clearly falls within Section 17 of the Registration Act and being unregistered, it must be held to be inadmissible in evidence.

4. It is, however, argued by Mr. Somasundaram for the respondent that even if this partition deed is put aside as inadmissible in evidence, it is still open to the Court to take into consideration the subsequent conduct of the parties; and as both the Courts have found that the respondent was in exclusive possession for about two years after the partition till the appellant trespassed upon the suit property in 1934, the decision of the Court below can be supported on the ground of the respondents possessory title. Mr. Somasundaram placed reliance upon a decision of Ramesam, J., in Ahobilachariar v. Thulasi Ammal AIR1927Mad830 , which to some extent app