IMPORTANT POINT
A document that divides property in presenti requires registration to be admissible in evidence under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal arises from a suit for declaration and injunction. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 22.03.2013 made in A.S.No.32 of 2012 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Salem, in reversing the judgement and decree dated 10.12.2011 made in O.S.No.70 of 2006 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Mettur, Salem District, the plaintiff appeals.

2. The parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of convenience.

3. The plaintiff and the 3rd defendant are the sons of defendants 1 and 2. It was the plea of the plaintiff that the properties are joint family properties and on account of the dispute that has arisen in the family there was a panchayat which was held on 01.06.2005. The panchayat, according to the plaintiff, were held in the presence of relatives and close friends and the properties of the family were divided. The plaintiff pleaded that on 12.10.2005, the partition that was effected on 01.06.2005 was reduced to writing. The plaintiff claims that he approached the defendants for peaceful enjoyment of the properties on the basis of document dated 12.10.2005 and since the defendants refused to accede to the same, he filed the suit for declaration of title and for injunction.

4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 3rd defendant. The 1st defendant pleaded that the plaintiff and the defendants were jointly occupying several poramboke lands but, patta had been issued separately to each of them. The averment of joint family was denied and so also the factum of the oral partition dated 01.06.2005. They denied the document dated 12.10.2005 and stated that they never agreed to transfer the properties in the name of the plaintiff. They also denied the averments of the plaintiff that when he sought for partition again it was refused and the defendants 1 to 3 had trespassed into the properties. According to them, the suit properties are all poramobke land which had been occupied by the 1st defendant and his father, i.e., the grandfather of the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant. In no uncertain terms, the alleged oral partition dated 01.06.2005 and the panchayat muchalika were denied. According to them, the signatures found in the documents are theirs but, the defendants had taken a plea that their signatures were taken fraudulently and had been utilized for the purpose of fabricating the document dated 12.10.2005. More importantly, a specific plea was taken that the document requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. On the basis of the above, the defendants pleaded that the suit must be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether an oral partition was effected on 01.06.2005?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

(4) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?

6. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff-Nachimuthu examined himself as P.W.1 and one of the mediators viz., Mani was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the 3rd defendant- Palanisamy examined himself as D.W.1 and one K.Palanisamy and Senthilkumar were examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3. It is pertinent to point out that though the written statement was filed by the 1st defendant, it was the 3rd defendant who entered into the witness box and deposed supporting the case of the defendants. On the side of the defendants two documents were marked viz., Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 and another document Ex.X.1 was marked in evidence.

7. The learned trial judge on the basis of evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his title to the properties relying upon the panchayat muchalika dated 12.10.2005 decreed the suit as prayed for.

8. Aggrieved by the same, a regular appeal was preferred before the learned Dis