Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Subraya M.N. – Appellant
Versus
Vittala M.N. & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5805 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 27268 of 2008
Decided On : 05-07-2016
(B) Property Law – Family Settlement – Requirement of registration – There is no provision of law requiring family settlements to be reduced to writing and registered, though when reduced to writing question of registration may arise – Binding family arrangements dealing with immovable property worth more than rupees hundred can be made orally and when so made, no question of registration arises – However, if it is reduced to form of writing with the purpose that terms should be evidenced by it, it required registration and without registration it is inadmissible; but said family arrangement can be used as corroborative piece of evidence for showing or explaining conduct of parties. (Para 17)
(C) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal – Scope and ambit – Power under Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice – But where both courts have misappreciated evidence and ignored weight of evidence on record and findings suffer from perversity, Apex Court would certainly examine whether findings are consistent with facts and evidence on record and interfere with the conclusion – Where there is gross or palpable error, Supreme Court can also consider whether finding is wholly inconsistent with material on record or whether lower court has dealt with evidence in a perfunctory manner. (Para 21)
Facts of Case:
Instant appeal is filed against judgment passed by High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. dismissing appeal preferred by appellant-defendant and thereby confirming judgment and decree for partition passed by trial court.
Findings of Court:
There was division of status among brothers, defendant and plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 during year 1995 or at the time when defendant paid Rs.20,000/- to plaintiffs No.3 and 4 for relinquishment of their interest in items No.1 and 2 or on 18.03.1995 when before Panchayat resolution was passed. Appellant had given application for grant of patta of item No.3 in 1989 and same was renewed in 1991 during which time there was no division of status among defendant and plaintiffs No.3 and 4. Since grant of item No.3 in name of defendant is for benefit of family, trial court and High Court rightly recorded concurrent findings that plaintiffs are entitled to share in item No.3.
Result – Appeal Partly allowed.
Certainly. Here are the key points from the provided legal document:
An unregistered family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence to show or explain the conduct of the parties involved [D22][D16][D18].
Family settlements concerning immovable property worth more than a hundred rupees can be made orally and are valid; registration is required only if the agreement is reduced to writing with the intent that it should serve as evidence [D17].
When a family arrangement or settlement is reduced to writing, it must be registered to be admissible as evidence of the transaction affecting immovable property [D16].
Such family arrangements, even if unregistered, can be used to corroborate or explain the conduct of the parties, especially when the arrangement was acted upon and the parties' subsequent conduct supports its validity [D16].
The courts have a duty to carefully appreciate evidence and ensure findings are consistent with the facts and material on record. Perversity or misappreciation of evidence can justify interference by the Supreme Court under its power of review [D21].
In cases involving property, the initial possession and development by the family or the deceased prior to any alleged individual encroachment or transfer are relevant in determining ownership and rights [D23][D24].
Payment of T.T. fines or other charges related to land, and subsequent government grants or pattas, are significant factors in establishing whether land is considered family or self-acquired property [D21][D22].
The conduct of the parties, including living arrangements and claims for partition, can indicate whether property is treated as joint family property or self-acquired, especially when parties have not made claims for partition despite individual development or retirement [D19].
The exercise of powers under constitutional provisions, such as Article 136, should be sparing and only in cases of evident error or injustice, particularly when lower courts have misappreciated evidence or arrived at perverse conclusions [D21].
When a property was in possession and development of the family during the lifetime of the original owner, subsequent government grants or registration in the name of a family member do not necessarily convert the property into self-acquired property, especially if the family’s continuous possession and development are established [D23][D24].
The division of property and entitlement to shares can be modified based on the evidence of relinquishment, conduct, and subsequent acts of the parties, with courts having the authority to adjust shares accordingly [D17][D21].
The final determination of property rights involves assessing all evidence, including oral statements, written receipts, panchayat resolutions, and conduct, to arrive at a just conclusion [D16][D17][D19].
Please let me know if you require a more specific summary or further assistance.
JUDGMENT :
R. Banumathi, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 20.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No. 805 of 1998 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant and thereby confirming the judgment and decree for partition passed by the trial court.
3. Briefly stated the case of respondents-plaintiffs is as follows:-
The appellant-defendant and the respondents-plaintiffs are the sons of one late Narayana. The suit scheduled property comprises of item No.1 bearing S.No.69/69 measuring 1.00 acre; item No.2 bearing S.No.69/70 measuring 0.25 acre and item No.3 bearing S.No.69/5C2 measuring 1.00 acre. Items No. 1 and 2 are the joint family property of late Narayana. Narayana died in the year 1962. Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 were working in the army and were sending money to the joint family and the joint family affairs were run by the appellant-defendant. Respondents No. 3 and 4 retired from the army in the years 1988 and 1989 respectively. House in item No.2 was constructed in the year 1980 from out of the joint family income and the contribution made by respondents No.3 and 4. Late Narayana was in possession of suit property item No.3 and had converted the same from forest land to a wetland and the same was further developed from out of the joint family income and the contribution made by respondents No.3 and 4. Respondents-plaintiffs averred that taking advantage of absence of the plaintiffs, appellant filed an application to the Tehsildar for grant of patta for item No.3-S.No.69/5C2 which was opposed by the respondents. Alleging that the appellant is attempting to grab the suit properties, respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming 1/5th share to each of them.
4. In the written statement, appellant-defendant claimed that so far as items No.1 and 2 are concerned, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have sold their shares-0.50 acre of land to the defendant and the third plaintiff as per sale deed dated 28.04.1976 and plaintiffs have no right to claim partition in items No.1 and 2. It is further averred that there was a panchayat in the village on 18.03.1995 wherein plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and defendant participated and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant will give Rs.50,000/- to plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 and defendant will have all rights over items No.1 and 2. So far as suit property in item No.3 is concerned, appellant-defendant claimed that he had encroached the said area of 1.25 acre in S.No.69/5C2 in the year 1962 and converted the same into wetland and applied to the Government to regularize his encroachment. After enquiry, the revenue authorities have granted patta to the defendant and hence item No.3 is the self-acquired property of the defendant and the plaintiffs have no right to claim any share.
5. On the above pleadings, trial court framed five issues. Plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and two more witnesses were examined as PWs 3 and 4. Defendant examined himself as DW-1 and examined four other witnesses. During the course of trial, respondents No.1 and 2-plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were examined as CWs 1 and 2 and they have stated that they have no claim or right in items No.1 and 2.
6. Upon consideration of evidence, trial court held that sale deed (Ex.D13) dated 28.04.1976 is proved and the said sale is only by plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and not by plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 and they cannot be said to have relinquished their right by virtue of resolution of panchayat or receipts produced as Exs. D14 and D23 as there can be no relinquishment without any registered documents and on those findings held that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in items No.1 and 2. So far as item No.3 is concerned, trial court held that the defendant has failed to prove that the sum of Rs.3489/-paid by him towards the T.T. fine was from out of his own income and held that the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in item No.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
