The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compulsory registration of family settlement documents under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and the inadmissibility of such documents for any collateral purpose if not registered.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.266 of 1991 dated 19.02.1993 on the file of the Additional District Court Vellore, modifying the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.312 of 1982 dated 16.12.1989 on the file of the Sub Court Vellore.)              The 5th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 17 defendants in O.S.No.312 of 1982 on the file of the Sub Court at Vellore are the appellants herein.

2. O.S.No.312 of 1982 had been filed by the 1st respondent herein, Sakunthala wife of M.V.Munusamy against the defendants therein, seeking partition and separate possession of 5/12 shares in the properties described in A, B, C and D schedules to the plaint and for appointment of Commissioner to so divide the said properties and also to order an enquiry for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and for costs of the suit. By judgment dated 16.12.1989, the learned Sub Judge, Vellore had partly decreed the suit with respect to A schedule properties excepting item Nos.14 and 20 and with respect to B schedule properties. However, the suit was dismissed with respect to the relief sought against C and D schedule properties.

3. Questioning that judgment, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th to 17th defendants filed A.S.No.266 of 1991 before the Additional District Court, Vellore. By judgment dated 19.02.1993, the appeal suit was partly allowed by granting decree for partition and separate possession with respect to item Nos.2, 5 and 6 in A schedule property and with respect to item Nos.11 and 12, it was stated that the plaintiff is entitled for the cash value of 5/12th share which should be determined at the time of the final decree application. With respect to B schedule property, it was stated that the 5th and 6th respondents were entitled to right of equity consequent to their purchase. With respect to other aspects, the Trial Court judgment was modified and confirmed.

4. Questioning that particular judgment, the present Second Appeal had been filed by the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th to 17th defendants in the suit.

5. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 07.09.1998 on the following three substantial questions of law:-

“i). Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court with regard to Ex.B3 is correct in law?

ii). Whether the lower Courts overlooked the legal position that Ex.B3 can be looked into for collateral purpose?

iii). Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in law in directing the compensation to be paid to the plaintiff in respect of suit Items 11 and 12 of the plaint A schedule?“

6. The plaintiff claimed that the properties described in A and B schedule to the plaint which were mainly agricultural lands and also the residential house originally belonged to her paternal grandfather Manicka Naidu. Her paternal grandmother was Muniammal who died in the year 1954. Manicka Naidu died in the year 1970. They had two sons and two daughters. The 1st son Venkatasami Naidu was the father of the plaintiff, Sakunthala. He died in the year 1965. The mother of the plaintiff had pre-deceased him and died in the year 1961. The plaintiff further claimed that her paternal uncle, Gurusami Naidu, who was shown as the 1st defendant in the suit, made use of the produce available from cultivating the A and B schedule properties to purchase the C schedule properties in his name and the D schedule properties in his wife-s name.

7. Claiming that the said properties also formed part of the joint family nucleus namely, the A and B schedule properties, the plaintiff had claimed partition and separate possession of 5/12th share. She had claimed that share by stating that during the lifetime of Manicka Naidu the co-parcenary consisted of himself and his two sons Venkatasami Naidu and Gurusami Naidu. They were each entitled to an undivided 1/3rd share. On the death of Manicka Naidu his undivided 1/3rd share fell to his two sons and two daughters