Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. On the basis of the pleadings put forth by the parties, the following issues were framed by this Court for trial:

1. Whether the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant, Srinivasalu Reddy and others are members of a composite Hindu family; whether the suit property belongs to such a composite Hindu family and whether the hire purchase agreement has been taken in the name of the 2nd defendant benami for the benefit of the composite Hindu family?

2. Whether the partition deeds are true or void or sham and nominal?

Issue No. 2 relates to the question whether the partition deeds are true or void, sham and nominal. The learned Judge proceeded to consider this issue keeping in view his finding that on the date of Ex. D-9, the three families did not constitute a joint Hindu family as they were not bound by any common ties which gave rights to one family over the properties of the other. On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued that Ex. D-9 suffers from material alteration and there/ore it should, not be relied on since, according to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, it did not contain the endorsement of the Sub Registrar on the reverse. The learned Judge, after pointing out the discrepancies between Ex. D-9 and the document as found in the registration book, held that the partition has no legal effect and that it could not be considered to be a valid partition deed.

27. The learned single Judge decided the second issue against the appellant mainly on the ground that the partition deed was void and non-est having been materially altered. He also relied on the finding on the first issue that no composite family ever existed comprising of three individual families. While coming to the above finding, the learned Judge recorded the arguments of the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant/appellant that it was wholly unnecessary for the court to go into the question whether composite family existed or not. Further, after recording the contentions of the learned Counsel for the 1st defendant/appellant, the learned Judge relied on the finding on the issue of composite family and went on to state that Ex.D-9 cannot be accepted as partition deed in the eyes of law. The learned Judge, in our view, has failed to appreciate certain crucial facts, which, if considered, would have led to a different conclusion in favour of the appellant and in favour of the genuineness and validity of the partition deed. As already been, it is indisputable and various properties had been sought to be put together in a common pool by the members of three different families. It is also beyond doubt that the said properties have been divided amongst the members of the three families. There was mutual adjustment of the right, title and interest of the parties to the deed of the properties mentioned in the schedule and subsequent to such adjustment, the parties had actually acted upon the deed and had even sold various properties that were allotted to their respective shares. We are of the view that learned Judge has erred in holding that Ex.D-9 is invalid and has no legal effect. The learned Judge has only misread Ex.D-9.