A partition agreement requires registration if it creates rights; a document lacking registration cannot substantiate a partition despite acknowledgments.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated December 12, 2019 passed in A.S.No.69 of 2014 by the 'Principal District Court, Ariyalur' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated October 27, 2006 passed in O.S.No.65 of 2004 by the 'Subordinate Court, Ariyalur' [henceforth 'Trial Court'].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The plaintiff is the elder brother of the 1^st defendant. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants are the sisters of the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant. The plaintiff worked as an Engineer in several places in the State of Tamil Nadu and he retired from service in 1993. Thereafter, he is residing along with his son at Pennadam. The 1^st defendant who is the younger brother of the plaintiff was living along with his father Subbaraya Pillai in the native village - Sendurai and he has been employed as a Village Administrative Officer. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants / sisters are already married.

3.1. Late Subbaraya Pillai is the father of the plaintiff and defendants and they have already divided the landed properties on February 14, 1972 by way of registered deed of partition, excluding the Suit Properties which are house and house-sites. It was agreed that the Suit Properties being enjoyed in common as joint family properties, shall be reserved for partition at a later point of tine. The 1st defendant and father - Subbaraya Pillai were residing in the 1^st item of the Suit property and other Suit items were under the control of the Subbaraya Pillai till his death. Around 1995, Subbaraya Pillai died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal heirs. After the death of Subbaraya Pillai, the Suit Properties are under the management of the 1^st defendant and as such the Suit Properties are tenancy in common.

3.2. Then, the plaintiff approached the 1^st defendant to divide the Suit Properties equally. The plaintiff stated that the sisters should be given a share in terms of money. But the 1^st defendant refused for the same and subsequently attempted to alienate some of the Suit items and now he is trying to put up construction in 6th item of the Suit Property. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff demanded partition on March 14, 2004 to divide the Suit properties and the 1^st defendant denied the right of the plaintiff by saying that the plaintiff and the other defendants have no right at all over the Suit properties. Hence, the Suit for partition.

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The first defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 2 and 3. The defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is averred that the Suit properties are not joint family properties and were already divided through a Panchayat comprising Muthukumarasamy Pillai, Subbaraya Pillai, Rathinasabapathy Pillai and others, around the year 1990. To record the same for remembrance, on August 19, 1990, the partition was reduced into a Partition List in the presence of the Panchayatdhars, drafted by one Selvaraj of Sendurai, and duly attested by all the Panchayatdhars after it was signed by the plaintiff and the first defendant. Since then, the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The plaintiff issued a notice dated November 6, 1990, acknow