Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parimal Singh Sikarwar vs Satish Singh Sikarwar on 3 September, 2019
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MP No.3417/2018
Parimal Singh Sikarwar and another Vs. Satish Singh
Sikarwar and others
Gwalior, Dated : 03.09.2019
Shri A.S. Bhadoriya, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate for respondent no.1.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10/7/2018 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Morena in COS No.11-A/2015, by which the objection raised by the petitioners with regard to the admissibility of the partition deed/acknowledgment of partition has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the respondents no.1 and 2 tried to prove a document, which was titled as acknowledgment of family settlement. The petitioners objected to its admissibility on the ground that although the document might have been titled as acknowledgment of family settlement, but in fact it is a relinquishment deed executed by Parimal Singh Sikarwar in favour of his sons Satish Singh Sikarwar and Vinod Singh Sikarwar, respondents no.1 and 2, and since the relinquishment deed is required to be registered and the value of the property was more than Rs.100/-, therefore, the said document is not admissible being an unregistered document as well as a document executed on insufficiently stamped paper.
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.3417/2018 Parimal Singh Sikarwar and another Vs. Satish Singh Sikarwar and others
3. The trial court rejected the objection and permitted the respondents no.1 and 2 to exhibit the acknowledgment of family settlement as Ex.P/23.
4. Challenging the order passed by the trial court, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that it is clear from the document Ex.P/23 that the said document was a relinquishment deed executed in favour of respondents no.1 and 2 by their father and, therefore, it was required to be registered under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act and it was executed on an insufficiently stamped paper.
5. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2 that the document in question is merely an acknowledgment of family partition, which had already taken place and once a document is exhibited, then its admissibility cannot be challenged at all.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. The respondents no.1 and 2 have relied upon a document which was titled as acknowledgment of partition and the same has been placed on record as Annexure P/5 and it has been marked as Ex.P/23, after rejection of objection raised by the petitioners. The relevant part of the said document reads as under:- 3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.3417/2018 Parimal Singh Sikarwar and another Vs. Satish Singh Sikarwar and others ge rhuksa i{kdkjksa ds e/; mDr Hkou 30'X45' QhV ds lEcU/k esa vkilh lgefr ls foHkktu gks x;k gS] ftl foHkktu ds vuqlkj i{kdkj dza0 1 ifjekyflag fldjokj tks i{kdkj dza0 2 o 3 Jh lrh'kflag fldjokj ,oa vkuUnflag fldjokj ds firk gSa muds }kjk mDr Hkou esa ls fdlh Hkh va'k Hkkx ij vkilh foHkktu ds vuqlkj dksbZ LoRo o vkf/kiR; izkIr ugha fd;k gSA LosPNkkiwoZd viuk gDd R;kx fn;k gSA mDr Hkou Hkkx esa izFke i{kdkj dk fdlh Hkh va'kHkkx ij dksbZ Hkh LokfeRo] LoRo o vkf/kiR; ugha jgsxkA
8. From the plain reading of this paragraph, it is clear that the father had relinquished his share in favour of the respondents no.1 and 2, who are his sons. Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act reads as under:-
"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) XXXX
(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;"
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama reported in (2018) 15 SCC 130 has held as under:-
"10. The only question which needs to be 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.3417/2018 Parimal Singh Sikarwar and another Vs. Satish Singh Sikarwar and others considered in the present case is as to whether document dated 9-9-1994 could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or the trial court has rightly held the said document inadmissible. The plaintiff claimed the document dated 9-9-1994 as memorandum of family settlement. The plaintiff's case is that earlier partition took place in the lifetime of the father of the parties on 25-10-1992 which was recorded as memorandum of family settlement on 9-9-1994. There are more than one reasons due to which we are of the view that the document dated 9-9-1994 was not mere memorandum of family settlement, rather a family settlement itself. Firstly, on 25-10- 1992, the father of the parties was himself owner of both, the residence and shop being self-acquired properties of Devi Dutt Verma. The High Court has rightly held that the said document cannot be said to be a will, so that the father could have made the will in favour of his two sons, the plaintiff and the defendant. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any share in the property on the day when it is said to have been partitioned by Devi Dutt Verma. Devi Dutt Verma died on 10-9- 1993. After his death, the plaintiff, the defendant and their mother as well as sisters become the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 inheriting the property being a Class I heir. The document dated 9-9-1994 divided the entire property between the plaintiff and the defendant which document is also claimed to be signed by their mother as well as the sisters. In any view of the matter, there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties, hence, the courts below are right in their conclusion that there being relinquishment, the document dated 9-9-1994 was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act."
10. Thus, it is clear that the relinquishment deed is required to be registered. Undisputedly, the document is an unregistered document 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MP No.3417/2018 Parimal Singh Sikarwar and another Vs. Satish Singh Sikarwar and others as well as executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- only. Accordingly, the order dated 10/7/2018 passed by the Third Civil Judge, Class-I, Morena in COS No.11-A/2015 (as mentioned in the deposition sheet of plaintiff's witness Satish) is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law, after deciding that whether the document can be impounded or not and what would be the effect of its non-registration.
11. With aforesaid directions, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Arun* Judge
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2019.09.06 15:53:28 +05'30'