Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Khaja Habeebuddin vs Md. Ibrahim And Ors. on 5 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)ALD84, 2004(3)ALT51
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The 1st respondent filed OS No. 31 of 2001 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.
2. Petitioner and Respondents No. 2 to 9 figured as defendants therein. The suit was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was a prior partition way back in the year 1957. The trial of the suit was commenced. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff- 1st respondent is said to have been closed. The petitioner is being examined as DW-1. During the course of his evidence, he sought to mark the two documents viz., the alleged agreement dated 15-7-1957 and alleged award dated 16-8-1957. The 1st respondent opposed the same on the ground that the documents, if taken on their face value constitute partition deeds and unless registered, cannot be accepted in evidence. Through its order dated 7.8.2003, the Trial Court has sustained the objection raised by the 1st respondent. Hence, this Revision Petition by the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao submits that the documents referred to above by themselves did not bring about any partition and even if they were not registered they were admissible in evidence. The learned Counsel also submits that even if the document is to be treated as a partition deed and not registered, it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. He placed relies upon the judgments of this Court reported in Muthyalareddy v. Venkatareddy, , Kaheeda Moin v. Md. Iqbal Ali, , Pallapothu Naga Prasad and Ors. v. Pallapothu Venkata Krishna Rao and Ors. and Pudi Balraju v. Jallu Annapoorna, 2003 (3) LS 154.
4. On the other hand, Sri K. Mahipathi Rao, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that a perusal of the documents which are sought to be marked, discloses that a partition was directed to be undertaken in terms thereof and as such the documents, or, one of them is nothing but a partition deed. The learned Counsel also submits that since it is hot registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that when the document did not confer any right of possession or resulted in division- of properties by meets and bounds, the question of there being any collateral purposes does not arise.
5. In the suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner raise a plead of prior partition. He intended to prove and establish his plea on the basis of the two documents referred to above. It is not in dispute that they were neither stamped nor registered. The Trial Court took the view that the contents of one of the document dated 16.8.1957 indicate that it is a partition deed and in the absence of registration, it is not admissible in evidence. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to impress upon this Court that the document cannot be treated as partition deed by itself, the contents of the same disclose that it provides for the extent of shares of various persons and intends to bring about a partition. Under these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the finding of the trial Court that the document is partition deed.
6. The admissibility of an unregistered partition deed has been the subject-matter of discussion by this Court in several cases. A Larger Bench of this Court in its decision rendered in Muthyalareddy v. Venkatareddy (supra), held that even an unregistered partition deed can be received in evidence for the collateral purposes. In Kaheeda Moin v. Md. Iqbal Ali (supra), this Court analysed the nature of purposes which can be treated as collateral or otherwise, in the context of partition. It was held therein that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases, viz.,
(a) Severance of status,
(b) Division of joint property by meets and bounds; and
(c) Nature of possession of the various sharers.
7. Phases 'a' and 'c' were treated as collateral purposes and capable of being evidenced by even unregistered documents. So far as phase 'b' viz., partition of property by meets and bounds is concerned, it was held that such an aspect can be dealt with only by registered partition deeds. This view was adopted in the subsequent Judgments of this Court in Pallapothu Naga Prasad and Ors. v. Pallapothu Venkata Krishna Rao and Ors. (supra) and in Pudi Balraju v. Jallu Annapoorna (supra).
8. Reversing to the facts of this case, it is evident that the document in question did provide for extent of shares of various individuals. This fact can be brought in evidence only through a registered document. Therefore, the documents in question are inadmissible to establish the factum of partition of the property by meets and bounds. So far as the collateral purpose referred to above are concerned, the documents can be taken into account for the purpose of severance of status. As regards the nature of possession, it needs to be observed that the document itself did not indicate the nature of possession of the properties by various sharers. The result of this discussion is that:
(i) The document in question is partition deed.
(ii) It is not registered and
(iii) It does not deal with the nature of possession.
9. In the light of the law laid down by this Court in the judgments referred to above, the document in question cannot be received in evidence to establish the factum of partition. It, however, can be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of severance of status and nothing more.
10. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed, directing the Trial Court to receive the documents in question subject to proof for the limited purpose of establishing severance of status and nothing more. The Trial Court shall also consider the question as to whether the document is liable to be levied any stamp duty.