Tribhuwan Prasad Shrma vs Ramlakhan Sharma on 27 August, 2019

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Tribhuwan Prasad Shrma vs Ramlakhan Sharma on 27 August, 2019

By the instant petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 08.07.2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed in R.C.S.A No.320/2016 by the First Civil Judge, Class-II, District Rewa, rejecting the request of the plaintiff for taking document on record as the same was not registered document.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Court below is not proper and the Court has failed to consider the status of the document properly and has wrongly considered the same to be partition-deed required registration under 2 M.P. No.4247/2019 Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity the 'Act, 1908'). As per the petitioner, in view of the averments made in the application i.e. the memorandum of partition, the same is not required to be registered. Relying upon decisions reported in AIR 1988 SC 881 parties being Roshan Singh and others Vs. Zile singh and Others, (2005) 3 MPLJ 217 parties being Moolchand Agrawal and Etc. Vs. Babulal Agrawal and Others and (2017) 2 MPWN 202 parties being Seema Gupta (SMT.) Vs. Smt. Radha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document can be taken on record and the Court has illegally refused to accept the same on record.

It is appropriate that the document which is subject matter of the petition has to be seen and then only it can be inferred that whether the Court below has rightly directed to get the document registered and refused to accept the same on record as the same was unregistered. The relevant document is available 3 M.P. No.4247/2019 on record i.e. Annexure-P-3 and is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

vkt fnukad 27-06-74 dks ge rhuks HkkbZ Jh jke nqykjs 'kekZ o jke[kksykou ok jkelthou ru; JhBkdqjnhu 'kekZ lk0 euxok vkil esa viuh tk;nkn xSjeudwykok ttekrh ds flyflys esa le> cw>dj fuEufyf[kr caVuokjk dj fy;kA rQlhy caVuokjkuhps ntZ gSA A& ttekuh A& eks0 vokP;

tehu& xzke uxokWcM+kdksy okyk edku& cclesa& ,d dksV if'pe okys edku esa dksBk ok izkslkjhif'pe rjQ dk iwjk ftldk caVokjk igys gks pqdk gS ok ckn esa cuk fn;k x;k edkuA 2& jkte[kksykou A& ttekuh A& j?kqukFkZxzt&2 lkFkh dh tehu&uxokWigys[kksr es]a mRrj okyk NksVkdksBk vkSj 2& ofu;ko espk ds ikl okyh tehu edku& edkuiqjkuk jgk bl okyks esa if'pe rjQ ckaVuk edku ftldh if'peh dh vkslkjh NksMdj vkxs dh vkslkjh lesr vc dksBk ftlesa [kkuk curk gS o mRrj dk ixjkokykoyk iwjc okyk ls dksBk dk lkeus iwjc dh lkjA 3& Jh jke lthou dk fgLlk& 4 M.P. No.4247/2019 1& ttekuho frokxokW 2& dkaVh 3& HkkSadj 3& tehu ckVokjk okyh rhuksdksBk 3& edkuiqjkus edku esa njokts esa nf{k.k okyk dksBk vkSj nf{k.k okys edku o lkeus dk fgLlk lfpu rjQ uksV& enns ttekuh o xzkeMsYgh esa frokjh o rjSgk rFkk vkSj rhuksa HkkbZ;ks ds lkeus esa ok vkSj nhxjtkr dh tehu dh ge nksuks HkkbZ Jh jke[kksykou dks vius thou dky ds fy, ckn esa iwjk xkao lekt esa vkSj euxaok] nsoxkaod tksjksj okeqM+ok dh ttekuh esa ogd gDd esa rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dk cjkcj fgLlk jgsxkA ;g ekywe jgs fd nsoxkao esa dkfrZd eghuk vkoP; vkSj dqVjk esa [kksr gS ;g lc ds lkeus ls gSA A& mijksDr caVok ge rhuks HkkbZ;ksa ds le{k jkth [kq'kh ls gqvk gSA nwjkt] nhoky vkok: ge rhuksa HkkbZ Jh jke nqykjs 'kekZ o jke[kksykou 'kekZ Jh jke lthou 'kekZ ru; Jh Bkdqjnhu 'kekZ lk0 euxoka vkil esa tk;nkn xSjeudwy o ttekuh ds flyflys esa le> cw>dj fuEufyf[kr caVokjk dj fy;kA rQlhy caVokjk uhps ntZ gS o ttekuh A& jkenqykjs 'kekZ 2& clksyh csyk cybZ Vksyk tehu xzkeuxoka cM+k dksBk nf{k.k okyk edku& oi{k esa ,d dksBk if'pe okys edkuA dksBk o vkslkjh if'pe rjQ dh iwjk ftldk caVokjk igys gks pqdk gS ok ckn esa cuok;k x;k edku ok dqvkaA 2& jke[kksykou 'kekZ ¼A½ ttekuh ¼A½ j?kqukFkxat ¼2½ lfFkuh 5 M.P. No.4247/2019 tehu& uxoka igys [kksr esa mRrj okyk NksVk dksBk vkSj ofu;k cxhps ds ikl okyh tehu edku iqjkuk jgk bl okys esa if'pe rjQ okyk edku ftldh rjQ dh vkslkjh NksM+dj vkxs dh vkslkjh lesr e; dksBk ftlesa [kkuk curk gS ok mRrj dk iBkjk ok njjktkiwoZ okyk nks dksBk vius vius uke gSA 3& Jh jke lthou 'kekZ ¼A½ ttekuh frofjtok dky tehu dVjk okyh rhuksa dksBk edku iqjkus edku ds njokts esa nf{k.k okyk dksBk vkSj nf{k.k okyk edku o lkeus dk fgLlklfUr rjQ uksV& enn~ ttekuh esa xzkeMsYgh esa frokjho rjkSgk vkSj czk0rhuks HkkbZ;ksa ds lk>s esa nhxjtehu o ttekuh ge nksuksa HkkbZ Jh jkew [kksykou dks vius thou rd ds fy, nsus g~okn esa iwjk xkao lk>s o vkSj euxaok nsoxkao o tksjsV dkcq<ok dh ttekuh us okil gDd es rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dk cjkcj fgLlk jgsxk ;g ekywe jgs fd nsoxako esa dkfrZd eghuk flQZ feyk gS vkSj dVjk esa ,d isM+ vke g~ og lc ds lk>s esa gSA mijksDr caVokjk ge rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa ds le{k jkth [kq'kh ls gqvk g~ ge rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dks ekU; gS ftldk fu.kZ; Jh ia0 ghjk yky th frokjh lk0 euxaok Jh ia0 ghjk ef.k lk0 lwjk ds le{k gqvk ftldk dkxt fy[k Jh czteku iz0 us fd;k euxaok jkenqykjs 'kekZ vLi"V jke[ksykou ge rhuksa HkkbZ;ksa dks ekU; gS ftldk fu.kZ; Jh ia0 ghjk yky th frokjh xuok o ia0ghjke.klk lwjk ds le{k gqvk ftldk dkxt fy[kk x;k lk0 euxaok n0ghjke.k jke nqykjs 'kekZ 27-6-74 6 M.P. No.4247/2019 jke[kksykou 'kekZ Looking to the aforesaid document, it is clear that the same is nothing but a partition-deed and it is defined under Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Section 2(15) "Instrument of partition" means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue-authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition;"

As per Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, 1908, the document which is quoted hereinabove, needs to be registered. Section 17(1)(b) is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"17. - Documents of which registration is compulsory.- (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:-

(a) x x x;

(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;" 7 M.P. No.4247/2019

This Court has dealt with this situation and decided the issue in W.P. No.4354/2017 (Raj Kumar Vashnaiya vs. Lokeshwar Kesharwani) and has observed in paragraph-18, which is as under:-

"18. As considered above, the Will dated 01.09.1975, does not give any share in favour of Vipin Kumar Kesharwani, whereas it bequeathed the property in favour of Gauri Shankar, Bhagwandas and Lokeshwar. Although, in the document dated 04.05.2002, property of Natthulal contained in Will dated 01.09.1975 has been partitioned in four shares and the same is a fresh partition deed requires to be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act seeking claim by virtue of the said document (instrument) rights and title or interest created in favour of the parties in respect of the immovable property. In view of the law laid down by this Court in case of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. V. Smt. Sarveshari & Ors reported in ILR (2013) MP 345, document sought to be brought on record requires registration."

So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Roshan Singh (supra) is concerned, it has no application in the present case because the Supreme Court has very clearly observed that a document which merely recites that there has in time past been partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not require registration. But, here in this case, the document is nothing but a partition-deed dividing a 8 M.P. No.4247/2019 property into part giving specific share to the family members/shareholders and there was no recital that the said partition had already taken place and it was reduced in writing.

Likewise, in the case of Seema Gupta (supra), this Court has considered that if a document is used for collateral purposes need not to be registered. But, here in this case, the document is being used for the purpose of declaration of the property which has been acquired by virtue of partition, therefore, the same is not being used for collateral purposes.

Further, the case of Moolchand Agrawal (supra) has no application in the present case because the provision of Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has no relevance in the present case.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no substance because the document which sought to be taken on record and is quoted hereinabove, requires registration as per Section 17 9 M.P. No.4247/2019 (1)(b) of the Act, 1908. The order passed by the Court below, therefore, does not suffer from any infirmity and is purely in accordance with the existing legal position. The petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-

Digitally signed by ANIL

CHOUDHARY Date: 2019.09.06 11:37:15 +05'30'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court