Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 20269
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Justinraj – Appellant
Versus
Arockiaraj – Respondent
The judgment clarified the admissibility of family partition documents and the conditions under which they could be considered without prior registration.
Headnote:
Registration - Partition Document - Registration Act - Section 17 - The court analyzed the compulsory registration requirement for a partition document, concluding that the interpretation allows for admissibility on grounds of possession unless proven otherwise during trial.
Fact of the Case:
A Civil Revision Petition was filed against the trial court's refusal to accept a family partition document from 1976 into evidence, which was deemed compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the document's classification required further examination of its purpose and status regarding registration, allowing the document to be considered at trial.
Issues: The key issue was whether the partition document requires compulsory registration under the Registration Act and if it was admissible in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while documents affecting present partition must be registered to be admissible, family arrangements could be recognized for the purpose of establishing possession.
Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition was allowed, setting aside the trial court's order and permitting the document's introduction into evidence.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order in I.A.No.477 of 2022 in OS.No.130 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Keeranur.
2.By the said order, the trial Court refused to take on file the document dated 31.03.1976, which is titled as “ghfg;gphptpid xg;ge;j Kr;rypf;if.” The ground on which, the said document was rejected is that the said document, which partitioned the suit properties is a compulsorily registrable document and therefore, in the absence of registration, as per section 17 of the Registration Act, cannot be taken as evidence and cannot be marked.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would contend that the case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the suit property which devolved upon four brothers, upon the death of their father was already partitioned as early as in the year 1976 by the said partition deed and pursuant thereto, the revenue records were mutated. But however, when the plaintiff's father executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff and further mutation of the patta was resorted to, at that point of time, the defendants started to interfere in the Pata proceedings and also claimed rights and therefore, the suit for declaration of title and consequential injunction is filed.
4.The suit is resisted by the defendants. The first defendant had filed a written statement, in which, the following averments are made in paragraph No.3:
“It is fraudulent to state that the family properties were divided between the four brothers on 31.03.1976 in to four schedules “A to D” and a written Partition Muchalika was prepared. It is fraudulent to state that Arockiasamy got transferred Pattas to the properties allotted to his shares in the said partition is fraudulent.”
Therefore, except to state that the division of family properties by the four brothers as on 31.07.1976 as fraudulent, nothing is stated about the partition deed, whether the signature contained in the written statement belong to all the four brothers and if so, no further averments were made. In that background, when the application is filed for bringing on record the unstamped, unregistered family arrangements, the same was resisted by the defendants by stating that it requires compulsory registration and accepting their case, the trial court has rejected the document and aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
5.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the impugned document is only a family Muchalika. He would submit that in any event, at least for proving possession, the document is admissible in evidence. He would submit that the property has been treated as separate property pursuant to the family arrangement from the year 1976 and suddenly disputes are made by the defendants. He would rely upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate single Bench of this Court in R.Munusamy-vs-Krishttappillai and others, reported in 2014 (6) CTC 773, to contend that the document shall be taken on file and the same can at least be relied upon to prove the possession.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent would submit that a plain reading of the document, it is very clear that the document effects partition in presenti and as such is compulsorily registrable. In this case, there is no question of any collateral purpose because the main purpose for which the document is sought to be introduced is to prove the partition. He would further submit that the property is enjoyed in common by the family even as on date. The mother's property alone was partitioned between the brothers recently. The father's properties have to be partitioned. While so, clandestinely one of the brother alone by choosing the prime properties having higher value, started dealing with the same as if it is his separate property and executed the deed in favour of his son, who is the plaintiff in the suit and therefore, the defenda
