Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Muniappa Gounder vs P.Dhanasekaran on 13 November, 2014
The said observation may be correct to the case dealt with by the Single Judge and the same will not be applicable to the case on hand as the facts of the case are entirely different from the facts of the other case dealt with in Muniappa Gounder's case. It was a case for declaration and permanent injunction on the premise that the family property had already been divided and the parties were in possession and enjoyment of separate shares allotted to them. A partition of the immovable properties need to be effected by a written document and it can be oral also. Similarly, a family arrangement in lieu of partition can also be oral. If at all the same is sought to be accomplished by a document in writing, not being a document evidencing the transaction which had already taken place, then such a document, namely partition deed or the family arrangement shall have to be compulsorily registered. As such, a partition deed or a family arrangement in lieu of partition shall come within the mischief of Section 17 of the Registration Act. However, such mischief is diluted by the proviso which says that a document which is compulsorily registrable and not registered can be received in evidence for proving a collateral transaction which is not required to be accomplished by way of a registered document. The collateral transaction in the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondent was the separation of the properties and separate enjoyment of the properties by the sharers in order to show that there was actually a partition de hors the unregistered partition deed. Only under such circumstances, for proving separate enjoyment alone, the said document was held to be admissible in proof of the collateral transaction of separate enjoyment of the shares by the co-sharers.
Bondar Singh & Ors vs Nihal Singh & Ors on 4 March, 2003
In the said order, the learned Single Judge, after referring to the provision and also the observations made by the Supreme Court in Bondar Singh V. Nihal Singh reported in 2003 (2) CTC 635 (SC) held that a document, which is compulsorily registrable and not registered, can be received as evidence of any collateral transaction, which transaction is not required to be effected by a registered instrument. Besides, the learned Single Judge held that such an unregistered document could be admitted to prove a collateral purpose, namely to prove possession.
1