Unregistered documents affecting property rights are inadmissible unless they meet statutory requirements, reinforcing co-ownership in property disputes.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The captioned appeal is by the defendant assailing the preliminary decree drawn by the Court below in O.S.No.8230/2000 whereby the plaintiff's suit for partition is decreed granting half share in the suit schedule property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The plaintiff initially instituted a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.8230/2000 against the defendant, specifically asserting that the suit schedule property had been jointly purchased by the plaintiff and the defendant under a registered Sale Deed dated 31.10.1958. In the said suit, it was categorically pleaded that both the plaintiff and the defendant, who are co-sisters, had acquired the property for valuable consideration and that the property comprised a residential house along with a vacant site. The plaintiff further averred that ever since the purchase, both of them have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as co-owners.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint, whereby the relief of partition and separate possession was incorporated in addition to the original relief of injunction. The necessity for seeking partition, as pleaded by the plaintiff, arose on account of subsequent events. It is specifically alleged that on 01.12.2000, the defendant attempted to put up a compound wall on the southern side of the property, delineated as ‘ABCD’ in the sketch appended to the plaint. According to the plaintiff, though there was an earlier understanding between the parties to amicably divide the property by allotting the northern portion to one and the southern portion to the other, the defendant resiled from the said arrangement and began asserting exclusive and absolute ownership over the entire suit schedule property. It is in this backdrop that the plaintiff sought not only protection of possession but also partition and separate possession of her legitimate share.

5. Upon receipt of summons, defendant entered appearance, filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant on the contrary asserted that she has paid the entire sale consideration while purchasing the property in 1958 and defendant never contributed any part of the sale consideration. The defendant further contended that since the entire sale consideration was paid by defendant, plaintiff has voluntarily given up her rights by executing the release deed in her favour and therefore, defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on rival pleadings, the trial Court formulated appropriate issues. Plaintiff and defendant were permitted to substantiate their respective claims by leading oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff in support of her claim examined her son by executing a GPA and in all produced 36 documents marked at Exs.P-1 to P- 36. Since defendant died, her husband contested the suit and mounted the witness box and led rebuttal evidence and relied on 12 documents marked at Exs.D-1 to D-12. The trial Court on appraisal of oral and documentary evidence answered additional Issue No.3 in the negative. While answering additional issue No.3 in the negative, the trial Court held that the release deed dated 11.11.1959 set up by defendant as a rebuttal to plaintiff's case is admittedly insufficiently stamped and is also not registered. It is in this background, the trial Court discarded the so called rebuttal e