Sri.Pilla Muniyappa vs Sri. H Anjanappa on 1 December, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 6]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Pilla Muniyappa vs Sri. H Anjanappa on 1 December, 2010

Equivalent citations: AIR 2011 KARNATAKA 103, 2011 (2) AIR KANT HCR 15, (2011) 2 KANT LJ 458, (2011) 100 ALLINDCAS 704 (KAR), (2011) 1 KCCR 314

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 are r<L§:si_c1V'iT.:--1_g«1z1Vt"'fi:;i1'z1ﬁ2tiiz1ha1lli
Hobli, B.;1411ga11V()1"e"I§i(')1'th Taluk,
B7PsIjgai()1'e. " 4%   ...APPELLANTS

 ' '    ;» -- S.}*iivap£'akz1sl1, Advocate)

IN THE. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 01*' DAY OF DECEMBER 2()1--:') y

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYR».é§R~El) DYA 1 A; "  

REGU LAR SECOND APPEAL_N(; .AA J1  1*3§c)'1if' 

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. Pilla Muniyappa    
S/0 Late Muniyappgy   '
Aged abquI;-.6_3-.yeaj;s, : 

2,. Sri. Sanjeev;V5{/"zi';'V)?p'aT' H ' _ 
S/0 Late 1\/i7uniy:1ppa,'7:f-.   '
Aged about years,._ ' '

3. Sri. K21rf;yapp21

 " S10 L23i_t:_£=:*1.\/13.111i;{;appa"~ A  _____ .. e
¥.Aged,z_1b0ut 53 _yE:a_rs,

S



AND:

ix.)

Szfi. H. Anjanappa,
S/0 Sri. Huchappa,
Aged about 68 years,

Sri. T..K. R.amak.ris]1na
S/0 Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 53 yeai-st

Sri. M. Anjanappa
S/0 Mtiniyappa,
Aged about 48 yeai-s,"

N0. .1 to 3 are residing at

Ta1'abana]1al1i, ChiE<kajala:,P~0st.::'V V

Bangaiore Nortij. "I"3._ltik.

4.

ix.)

S1-i. su;-eshiiiB.ati::ei--- A "  i

S[OiiM.iVI..i:ivBatiiii, i

Ageciabeui 43-'  
Residirig at No;.4406!Q'7«.¥0'8,
High 'Pr)_int, 4, 45,7Pzi'ie1pfe Road,

;Barigalore-. _ V " '

"is

...RESPONDENTS

   filed under section 100 of Code of Civil
PfGt':€Cil11'€, "Ii9(}58 against the judgment and decree dated
_ l_6.()i6--.--20G'9' -passed in R.A.N0.60/2008 on the fife of the
 'Principaiv District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
w_Baﬂ'g_fdi()Y€ dismissing the appeai against the judgment and
 "'d_er':i'ee'A_«d:1ted 13.12.2007 passed in O.S.N0. E49/2006 on the fiie
. 01°-thieCivil Judge ('Si'.Dn) and JMFC, Davaiiagere.



This appeal coming on for Admission the Court delivered
t.he following: --
,!'UDGM'ENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.   V' 

7 The brief facts of the case' are' &fotllowsii:'--~ 

The appellants were the plaiiitiffs ihieforeii'the' Eri-al 

and are accordingly referred to--..fo'rte_pthe sake' of '~coi1ye'1i'ie'nce.

The plaintiffs are residerats of""Tharab3=nahallli;'-Sela Hobli,

Bangalore  They claim that the suit properties are
their joint family'=prop<ert*ies,~ The propositus was one
Appaya11i1_a'eani(lv o"1ze'Hueli_'a.pp;.-1, who owned and possessed

severe}-.immoiVable~properties of the village. The family

 _<_:0r1i;:ils7ted._po:f._over or1e....hun.d.red and twenty members. It is the

 plain.tiffs:'vcasewthat in order to enjoy the lamily properties

AseparatelyT31:'piznehayath palupatti" or "panchayath partition"

was.__ef'fectedi'i;1nid was reduced to writing on 20.2.3990. The

/8



O.S.No.2587/E990 on the file of the 11 Additional I Mqnsiff,
Mysore. 'i 

This appeal coming on for Admission the Ctytiit-deVi.i.xjjered 

the followiiigz --

,1UDGMEN_f_r, >4
Heard the learned counsel for the appeililztnttty  
2. The brief facts of tl1e:v4'<;~ase are as t7<)llowS'::__:4"  

The appellants were the plai:h'ti_t'rE3._. before the trial Court
and are accordingly 1'efei'1'e_dtoi._fhr:v  convenience.

The plaintiffs'i'a1je..__V:'«res'ide'hts of Tharabanahalli, Jala Hobli,
Bangalore~.l\lorth Taliak. ,_T'i:ieiiy claim that the suit properties are

ti*1ei"r}A joint. fain-i.lyv prc-pelties. The propositus was one

»Ap-payannaganzi one Huchappa, who owned and possessed

several i';'n.ifnolvable prope1'ties of the village. The family

 consis.teid..of over one hundred and twenty members. It is the

plztiiniiffs' case that in order to enjoy the family properties

  separately a "panchayath palupatti" or "panchayath partition"

5



was effected and was reduced to writing on 20.2.1990.  The

particulars of the items of the property allotted to the 

branch forms the suit properties. The plaintiffs  "

other members of the several bran'c'he's«.of'l_rt.he. 

subscribed their hand to the faniily ztrlttingettnent and"svet't]eine~ntl'~

and the respective parties had ()'vi:;:i-"ii pe1'i0dl_ of
their respective shares,   yyeireillsimiiziriy
effected in the naines of  The properties
have been  years. it is the
  one acre of land as their
share.  sxtranger to the family sought to

interfere Willthalllﬁ  land bearing Survey No.61/2. It

" <  was_"fh.und that the"'c«ia.i.mv()f'the fourth defendant. was that he had

 from the first defendant without the

kn(>yJ]edg_e lor.V_eo1iseI1t of the plaintiffs though it was ailotted to

l"-the sliai'eV__fof' the plaintiffs. The first defendant had no right or

 which he could convey in favour of the fourth

5



6

defendant. It was in that background that the suit was filed for

declaration in respect ofthe said item of land.

The suit was contested by the fourth defe4'ndant:l'aiid  '

was claimed that he had entered into~an"ag.1jeei--j1ent oi'? sale-w,ithv..

the first defendant and the sale tran;sact;ion not ..lfl'd"i»'.lll.gi

completed the fourth defendant was"ci0nsti'ained'=to"_filt§.:_alsuit for
specific performance ohagreement'.Tlie._sameHhaVing been
decreed, it was executed.  uTh'ei"let'or.e._hefhad acquired an

absolute right *_O\4/leltglhe s--uit§1a'nd.l" _:It"--lwa.sfcontended that the

p.laintit7f;s' suit" 'was hence. 'riot. maintainable.
At'ter*a ful1;.tledgieti..aitriai, the trial Court dismissed the

suit. {This t'ind;.ing"liaviiigbeen conﬁrmed in an appeal, the

il}'Z)17f1'SiéI"1£ s'eco{id.;,1ppeal is filed.

 l1ﬂ€:.17i'12;1l'l€l' was heard at length for admission.

4.  pi'i:na1fy substantial question of law that is

 _soLiVght tobe canvassed is that. Exhibit P2 which is a record of

3



the family arrangement entered into by the members of the

family, though not registered was ignored by both tltep'Coju;its.

below, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.» j*He:ice_,.

the learned counsel for the appellant \.ivould'seei<_ to'conte'nd"thati7

the document did not require regist1'a1tio'nAaiss.it wasvinptihe na'ture

of a family arrangement or  ofil'paiftitioriiiettected
through the village   counsel also
produced the doctiment, 11.,/iiit1--jcated that the
properties    manner recorded
therein,   at immediately prior
to the eiizectitiioni   the panchayath. It was that

agreement vixi1iqcli.wa:;_i*ecluced to writing. This according to the

 counsel forvt--h-eappeilant was a mere record of an

ea*rIie"r partiitiori._arr--{i therefore, did not require registration. It is

this argument' which is canvassed at length, as this Court was of

ii -'~.__i'the prirna_¥facie opinion that the deed in question required

 _ i'eg'is.trati.on.

3



5. The learned counsei placed 1'e1i21nce. on se___ve1'a1

authorities to urge that Exhibit: P2 did not suffer fromW-;tt':«t t:tf

registration as it was not c0m.pu1Sori1y registerab1e;[:The.SSév'é1'al_'* 

citations are as f0110w:;»':--

LROSHAN SINGH AND OTHERS  

OTHERS (AIR 1988 SC 881);
2.1/EERAPPA AND 0'T.F{_ERS.At"'."Vt§j: Sm: HALAWA AND
OTHERS (ILR 2008 KAR 2t1#5t9A),- %    t  

3.LAKKAWWA;.'V€§. j'GOMQA!A§7WAAA:'}t1V'£2._._t3THERS (1991) 1

4.MATUR1.__ PULEA)A.H  ANOTHER .vS. V.MA TURI

NARASIMHAM ANl)'1OT'}'JE:RS (AIR 1966 SC .1836 ); and

 %tAND«tSt,OTHERS .t/S. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF

(.'O:NtSOLID;-R AND OTHERS (1976) 3 S. C. R.202.

    Tfte learned counsei would contend that apart tram

V' '..f'}E*",>A{t*iii).it' P2 the suit item o_fp1'0perty was part of hand that was

V"   cOafe1'1'ed by way of occupztttcy rights in fzlvoutf of the kartha of

5



9

the family and since the grant of occupancy rights was foif the

benefit of the family, the item of land which was 

land granted by the Tribunal is also recorded in'?theipeart'itli(i'nl,i 

deed and by virtue of such grant of  laird a'nd~:2tl.lott-me-tit :()1Cll'

share by the members of the i'am_ily, it'---eo'ul_d notv-'said that': the '

plaintiffs could not lay claim    P2.
Further, insofar  the  t'h,.eL».l.foi1i:th defendant for
specific perftirmance of  concerned,
this was again    suit and that the
 of the plainti__ffs or
witltoutlliis   such a collusive decree wouid

not bind the"plaintiffs.i3,llt*i.si' further contended that the lower

'V.-a;3pClllat3,_Ctitirt hals"ft----'--led to address the several. grounds of

 appe_al ath'atfwe'itel iaised and even if the plaintiffs contention as

regards the.  of registration or otherwise of Exhibit P2 has

  be coasi'dered, it would require the lower appellate Court to

 _faff'ord.i~an opportunity of hearing to the appellant to Consider the

l * ~se--veral grounds that are raised. Failing which, a valuable right

3



E. 0

has been taken away by the lower appellate Court, in not having

addressed the several questi_on_s of fact which require ~.t_"('2._.l3e

addressed. It is in this vein that the learned c(nl;nselti.foi'l ll

appellant would seek to eai1vz1ss:"the"sevpei-al.is1:bsVta'ntial"1

questions of law sought to be framed, apart_fro1i'1 thel'val'idity"o1'V'

otherwise of Exhibit P2.

7. In considering. thisttt'appea1,l'""th_e e11de'avo'ur of the
appellants to establish their lriglitll :ovg;i1fl"tli;€.l Suit property in

several different  21 "art gfroin "rel" in  Exhibit P2, as can
._  P. L _ E

be seen;  lalw':;.ys l.vith4la«...l_direct or an indirect reference to
Exhibit P2, T'l"l€1"€f(')l1u'::-. 'tl'le"--i_1__'i(')O"t. question is whether Exhibit 92

was a'1'nemo1'andAum'lof "partition or it is to be construed  a

lpartitionl' ,'deed,._ and whether it was invalid for want of

re_,gi.§.ti=at'i'(>«n;v.._i1*i~;'w.hich event, it could not be relied upon in

--V evidence" d11t11lC()l.1ld not be the basis for the appellant's case.

"  lnsofar as the several judgments that are citedgare

'  CQI3CCl'l]6d, in KALE's case supra, on facts, it is fotmd that the

S



land which was the subject--1natter of that case was land

granted under the U.P.Zan.1indari Abolition and Land

Act, 195 1, under wh_ich married daughters were notentiitled'totals M

share in the property. The dispute wasiiia's'betwee.;n 

and the son of the person to whom thev..!a'nd had :b_ee'n* granted.'

In proceedings before the Tt1hsiiii'cftai"»and theifeafte1' be-.for"e the

Assistant Commissioner, .pet.i.ti()n wiasiiiifiled and
the authorities after i*ecor'di_ng' allotted the
shares as    having been
  proceedings , the
dispute the the proceedings before the

Apex Court: >-ltd is with revference to those circumstances that the

'V,_vApe.;§VC§i.Lt1't.__afteri'e.x--tensivel.y referring to the case law has

nltirnatelv"helzli"that on consideration of the facts and

circnmstancesg, the Court was of the opinion that it was a family

it -'««_'_i'settleineat_land did not contravene any provisions of law but

 _ 'was-».a»'ilega] and valid binding settlement in accordance with

i * ~la-w. Therefore, it cannot be said that the facts of that case can

3



be pressed into service in applying the law as laid down therein

to the present case on hand.

Insofar as the judgment in RO'lSlHANA_  

concerned, this was a case where the S_uprerne;_C'ourt'=-'wasV

addressing whether a particular dl(ie:u"me'nt w"a~s_   of
partition and therefore  llrelgzistration
under Section 49 of the   1.908 or was
merely a    arrived at by the
parties  la..yi:elw£_;  determination of their
shares.   that there was a partition by

metes and bounds of the "agricuItu1'z1l lands effected in the year

  E_95v_5'~litse_llf and the allotted to the two branches which

 hat?"i)eei';v._'loc:ked' in legal battle, were ultimately mutated in the

relventte :'ee(')rdfs' and there was a disruption of the joint status.

  "All that reimttined was the partitiora of an ancestral residential

 T l'l1it3;}S.9l.--'Cai_|ed "rihaishi". and a smaller house c:a1.led "haitltak"

 V...z.1nd "gh_e_tfs". The document in question did not effect a

«S



pziitition but merely recorded the nature of the ai1'ange.rnezit

arrived at as regzlrds the division of the remaining p1'ope-i't_vp:-.p..A<

mere agreeineiit to divide, it was held by the Apes"Coi1rt;'tii<l':' it

not require registration . but if thej'writ'i'ng '-itseif.ve.ffeete'ti«' 

division, it is registerable. The apex. Court i'e3".'er.revd"to*--the V'

judgments in RAJANGAM ArrAR§.iv5. '21iYl'AR
(1923) 69 Ind Cas .l2}3.'(V14"::!'I~!')'/. 1/.I'}i(2' f\i/AIVIVVVBAI . vs.
GITA BA] (AIR 1958 5CA,,t7ft?'<_5i:,:tr iiii'.1iiiiiS  Therefore, the
said    proposition put
forth by  

  ease supra, the Supreme Court

was consid"ei'_ingvVthev_ essenptiials of family arrangenierit and it

-gp(?bSﬁ»HiZ€f(i"Aii'1£'it f2i1'iiil.yv_____:1r!;angernents will not be generally be

(iisrupted.__byihe"Court.s and documents not Creating an interest

in i1Iii'n()vai)'ie';property did not require registration. This case

'does not again he] the 21 ell:-mt to sustain the ro osition ut
.  P PP P i3 P

  V"-foi"tli1_ iigat the deed of partition was not required to be registered.

%



In LAKKAWWA's case thotrgh the Head Note published

in the report indicates that a family arrangement deed udti.(_l7n_ot

require registration, the body of the judgment does§"ii(it--«ieontain_ _

any such opinion. nor in any such poi_n:tHdiscus:3ed' therefore 

the Head note is misleading and wouid notcappl'y._to~ the 'facets "of:

the present case.
In VEERAPPA's ease, aitt1.e;tmedi_.singleJudgé of this
Court was considering theiisicope' :'paluvi:lpatlt'i in that particular

case and from thenibtady inf the'Vjucl_gitie.nt there is no discussion

of the lease would be an authority for that

particular chase and ic.aninotb._e' pressed into service in the case on

    .....

8., seen from the tenor of the document in question in.theipr'esejn.tA'et1se on hand, it is not as if there was an oral iw._at'1'angenire_11t between the parties several years prior to the "«i"e.¥tec'uti()ra of the document. Such an agreement preceded the é execution of the document. Therefore it was a continuous process whereby the parties had discussed the i:¢'rinjs~«.faj settlement and had reduced it into writing; 't1i'vidiur_1:g-iiitheii' it properties amongst themselves and:'ithie'i*efo_re«, it in'7the"'. nature of a partition deed and can'notV_be constirued memorandum of oral partition. position "is-V-accepted, the Eaw of the land would require that t:hei"doc,;ii'r2e nt be registered.

9. The consistent_v'vi.ewii__ii1i t%'i'i~svi'1"e'gar'd is evidenced from the and another vs.TI2akur Lac'!/zl2i11(.im_ S.fngli,.__.i{'i7l91iI' Reports Volume 38 Indian Ap19eg1i's appeai before the Privy Council, the principal}. t1LIest_i_0n decided was as to the right of succession to i'ce.1't.a_in esta_~te_s.'.iie;"f'he controversy between the parties was to which of several documents propounded was operative in law gto Iegulate the succession. A document, which read as follows, was the basis for the suit:-- cg lo "As the British Government has conferred on me generattion after geiiemtinn the proprietary right in Rztmkole estate therefore 1' wish and file this application that after my death Unirao Siiigh the eldest son (sic) int"

estate should continue in my family Lintlividedj""n1« accordance with the custom of rnjgaiddi and younger brotliers should be e:1tit'ied..1o' get !n.éill1t€:l']t{i'iLuYtE' hem the gaddi neishin."

The Privy Council held that the.__do_c_i.iment_-v_iwas ~«aiqon{t' testamentary instrument and 'it "tn-jets 3* family' ..var'r_a::genient arrived at by the mediation or aihitratien of "t'wo'lpe1's(3ns, who were old friends of the fehi:i~l=y and rnaintaining its honour! It intended -to be operative immediately and to be'tVfili1ayl It failed of effect simply because," it w21s"no_t"1*egistered as required by the Registration Section 17 and it was held void as regards the 'din ";Rc2_.j'cirzg(11n A_'vyar vs. RCIj(U'lg(U?'l Ay_r(11", (1922) Law l']j.?cé;;22;<r.s' hlllrzcliczn Apperzls V0150 Pctgc' 134, the facts and ' '«"cir{;u1nsta.nces are as folEows:~ 3 17 A joint family governed by the Mithakshara lawand consisting of two brothers. owned immovable propei't*ie's--VT'i'ﬂ. Travancore State and in British India. They *'i.eXe<:uted i agreement dividing the properties; i:."proVi«rl_ed thzttiia_dee(;l7of"1 Partition should be executed and should. be./regist¢1"_C»d 'in"Br*itiish' India and in Travancore, and tli.ai'ti""'vtias the agreement should be in to the Travancore properties, theppeldeire a larger share therein. The the agreement as to the trial court granted a decree __ «directed appointment of a comrnissioner to d.iVvid:e.the.¢_pro'pe1'ties where necessary. in an appeal to the"~«.Hi'gh Cot1~:ft,"t--he High Court was of the opinion that .irt.the' £1i)S€l1CE£~Qi:_tf§1glStI'21ti()l1, the agreement could not be en'l7o_i'iccd.i .i}n_i"t:~:._view, the terms of the agreement precluded it iifrtirri et)rijiin_g"WVitl1iit1 proviso ~ V sub--Se<:tion (2) of Section 17, of.the"iI'ndi.aii Rfzigistratitiii Act, l908. The High Court held that j the st1iiit..co.ald 'be treated as one for general partitioii, but that in Z dividing the propetties in British. India, the plaintiff sl1ould.,have at share which would be equal to that of the defendant unequal division in Ti'aVLlI'1C0i'6 was taken into zicct.-Iunt. In an appeal to the Privy Cou'r1'eil','«::t:.j_ 'regardisiitohe 'non--.'1 registration of the :;1g1'e-ement» the P1ti~V/Y'--£0uncil1.".i,Wt1s'ofgthftV opinion that Section 17 of the lim:li'an Regt's.tr2i'tioi1 1908. makes the registration of c_ertt1_iVn" glasses of it documents compulsory. Among ()tVhefsV,_ non:--testarn'e._if;t2{ry instruments which purport to Cjeate, 'de_cl£1re,_4'ass'ig'n;~--'iimit or extinguish, whethe1;'lliniVpre.sent inl"future,_uﬁny right, title or interest, whether A'vt-=;st'e.d ()r__eontingelnt«,'"'of the value of one hundred 1'upeesavnc_l upwam_is"to orin immovable property. V' _ Front "this, proviso V to Sub--section 2 excepts the "v'z-my document not itseti' creating, declaring, ttssigniiig, Iimiting or extinguishing any right, title or l"*~i11tere.st ofthe value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable urouert . but merei' crcatin ti riszht to E l 3 -

5 19 obtain 'imother cioctiment which will, when executed, create. __ deck-u'e, assigii, limit or extingiiish any such right", tit1eor.._ interest"

And that. the document in question was notjét' d(..teun1fei1.t"'--t V' by itself creating, declaring, assigning; Ii"rniri11g--'_4o1'_e>§ti;iguishii.ng-.« any right or interest in irnniovzlble pl'()[V4)('.__1"t.i'y~,_V It rneifeiy»tti'e2tted--.a ' right to obtain another dtucumentiwiiicli would.iwheniiexeeuted, create a right in the person c}'aimi:*ig._tHe.._reiief iéinﬂcvl on that ground, the Privy C()unci]AvV_heidVVt'nnt fthe"'snidV..'d.oVCument did not require i'egist1'ati0n;iji'and.that€_it'w2tSA._aCeoi'cii'ngiy admissibie in evidence insofar' as -it 'went r In irtrqmrbczget amt; Baa', AIR 1958 SC 706, the Sup1"en1.e Court rt:-13% held t'o1]ows:--

' "I't:i~rEr_z'm-:a_ in the Mitczkshczrcz .s'm.s'(> n'zc1y be 0:zlj.= (1 it V.§L'lfx€;'Z(Ili!(,'t"'~Q}: {I16 joint .s'I'am.s' of the i-?I()i]l£[J(J-rxS( of {he '£'()'l)(li"(i'(;';7.I{£ {hat is' to .s*a_);, wltczf wars ()J'I(?€ a joint I'z'I'le, ijrzﬁ' .f)éc.'()17'18 (1 c1i'vicJe(l I:'!Ic> Il1()ugfz I'/were 1'-ias beret-1, no A c1z.'vf';s':'(m. Qf mry pr0perI1'c<s" by meIc.s' (£1161 bmm.d.s'. _j3'czt'IiIi'(;r: mcz_t' also mam what nrclir-mrz'1_)' is 1:}-:dc.>z'5r(>c.)cl 2;

Ix) [Men no pc1m'Ii()n in that .s'.r3r1.s'e, (he it-1Im'€.s'I of I/1e_._ .s'epc1rctfm' n-zcwzber (:*mztiI'1nc'>.s' In (JxIenc2' over' the l-1/'}?.L)tl.>{%_' joint property as be "are. Sm:/1 (1 n"(nz,s'a(.'Ii0rz c1(:'es'--.r_tr.!I__i' . l purport or 0pemI'c> to do Elli)' ofthe Il1.1':-1.g.s' rcfft':*i"r{t! lv'(:;IV"£['Il"

I/mi sec'Iion. Hence. in so far .513" .'h,r.{ ew'deizc'ca ()fp(1f'II'Il'()f'I onZ_v in the 'V}'§_j)r':-n_V.'_e'1e' rivet not compulsorily r'egi.s'Ier'ctl2ig_ £!J'Idlc5}'._S'."1 7, 51:35} 'VH-'(V'):l~:lI.'(1, ffzere_fbre, and ('.'0H?€ within. rim.n}ils'c'f1r'cy" it In Sz'r0mam' vs. . ':f.?(,{r72k;t}no;, SC while following Nam' bai's case,H_ .tlt2i'tAA--l21':lc_lleeci relied upon for the basis of suit was ad'1n_is'si'oie~in evidence as it €ff6Ct€d~""pﬁIT['l.l.ljQﬂ *-prope~1'ties"""of"the value of more than Rs.l0O/--llKand._ it weslttot'vtfelgisltered since the registration was coinptdsory loll' s_i1c.hV'a (loctiﬁent under section l7(l)(b) of the H""Reg'ivstl1'at--i'on Theergument that the registration of the I dolCu:nent*w21s;l :not}~necessary because there was only severance of joint .5;vt2ttus~" of the 1'l1€l"nbt31'.'~3 of the co--parcena1'y and there H _'wz1s_no 'p2utition of the properties by rnetes and bounds was _ 1i'egéiti'Ved. The relevant portion of the document marked as " Eihibit - 13.4 was to the following effe-Ct:-

rgf fins' Coz.u'I in Nam" 131:! 1'. Gm: Bélt, 1959 SCR 479 = {AIR 1958 SC 705;. " ' One other point that was urged in the z1bov.e..e'ase' whether a widow in the family was entitled__4_'toV'a:"share" according to the Mithakshara law otT_the.Benaties4_Se.hoo}»._atagar .A partition between her sons tosa -s_ha1'e to But, it was contended that the vdocutnent acquiescing in the divistotxof ,t1'16" between her sons, without claiming arty' must be taken that she 'sharevwarid since she had not taken any action The Supreme Court rejected sueh"~a't:Qn't.ent--.i:on';" it was held that the ground of 'V V' '-aequ'vi.e'sce'nce'~-did 11()tVl"1a'V'e the effect of validating the document whiehVv.iaVs»--.tst3tt'ght'to be reﬁied upon, which was an unreg_iste1'ed deeAd--~...__ Act, 1908. The.re.fo1'e:, it was i11admissi.bIe in evidence for want of registration and could not have been relied upoﬁ' basis to claim that there. was an earlier partition. The appeal is accordingly 1'ejec!'e'Ci'§ A 3 "-45 .y "'21ib/--.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court