SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(P&H) 1511

VINOD K.SHARMA
Sukhdev Raj (dead) represented through his LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Babu Ram – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. R.C. Setia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Ranjan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Y.K. Sharma, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

What is the admissibility of an unregistered partition deed to prove the factum of partition? What is the applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to a co-owner in a partition dispute? What is the effect of Section 91 of the Evidence Act on proving partition through collateral evidence?

Key Points: - The unregistered partition deed is not admissible to prove the factum of partition. (!) (!) - A co-owner cannot claim the benefit of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. (!) - The document Exhibit D-1 (partition deed) is registrable and its non-registration defeats its evidentiary use to prove partition; collateral evidence under Section 91 cannot bypass this. (!) (!)

What is the admissibility of an unregistered partition deed to prove the factum of partition?

What is the applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act to a co-owner in a partition dispute?

What is the effect of Section 91 of the Evidence Act on proving partition through collateral evidence?


JUDGMENT

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 11-03-1981 passed by the learned District Judge, Roop Nagar, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff for separate possession by means of partition of the joint property in question was ordered to be decreed.

2. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 herein had brought a suit against Sukhdev Raj and Dev Raj, defendants for separate possession by way of partition of the joint property i.e. two shops, one house and the site thereunder marked as ABCDEF as described in the head-note of the plaint. It was pleaded that Babu Ram and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with their brothers, Megh Raj, Madan Gopal and Hem Raj, purchased a plot described in the head-note of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 7330/- vide sale deed dated 29-01-1969 from one Jamadar Singh son of Hans Raj. The plaintiff had 2/7th share in the plot, whereas defendant Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith their brothers Megh Raj, Madan Gopal and Hem Raj had 5/7 shares therein. The plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and Megh Raj, Madan Gopal and Hem Raj, constructed shops on the vacant site. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 purchased the share of























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top