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

2015 Supreme(SC) 971

RANJAN GOGOI, N.V.RAMANA
Yellapu Uma Maheswari – Appellant
Versus
Buddha Jagadheeswararao – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

What determines the nature and admissibility of a document? (!) [1000572160016] Whether Exhibits B21 and B22 are admissible in evidence as compulsorily registerable documents? (!) Whether unregistered documents are admissible for collateral purpose in a partition suit? (!)

Key Points: - The nature and substance of a document is determined by its terms and recitals, not its nomenclature or pleadings of the party introducing it. (!) [1000572160016] - Exhibits B-21 and B-22 involve relinquishment of rights in immovable property, making them compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, and inadmissible for proving partition without registration per Section 49. [1000572160015][1000572160016] - Unregistered documents in a partition suit cannot be used for division of joint properties by metes and bounds (primary purpose) but can be relied upon for collateral purposes like severancy of title and nature of possession of shares. [1000572160017] - For collateral use, unregistered and unstamped documents must be properly stamped, impounded, and subject to proof and relevance. [1000572160017][1000572160018] - Trial Court and High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits B-21 and B-22 entirely; appeal partly allowed to permit marking for collateral purpose after compliance. [1000572160008][1000572160018] - Section 49 proviso allows unregistered documents as evidence of collateral transactions not requiring registration. (!) [1000572160017]

What determines the nature and admissibility of a document? [p_16][1000572160016]

Whether Exhibits B21 and B22 are admissible in evidence as compulsorily registerable documents? [p_16]

Whether unregistered documents are admissible for collateral purpose in a partition suit? [p_17]


JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This Appeal has been preferred aggrieved by the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in CRP No. 3419 of 2013, dt. 27/12/2013 wherein and whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the Revision Petition preferred by the Appellants/Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 by confirming the orders passed in O. S No. 10 of 2004, dt. 08/07/2013 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle.

3. The brief facts which are necessary for adjudicating the dispute involved in the present appeal, in nutshell, are as follows.

4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed O.S No. 10 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, Anakapalle against the appellants and others for the relief of partition claiming ¼th share in Item No. 1, ½ share in Item No. 2 of the suit schedule properties.

5. It is the specific case of the1st respondent/plaintiff that one Jaggayya, who is the foster father of the plaintiff, had acquired certain properties during his life time and executed a Registered Will dt. 22/05/1964 in a sound and disposing state of mind bequeathing his immovable properties in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and 1st defendant/appellant No
































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