Nanni Bai And Others vs Gita Bai on 14 April, 1958
With regard to ryoti lands, para.1 definitely states that Hemkumar is alloted 51 acres, Dinmani 39 and Shiromani 33 acres. With regard to the joint family house there is partition between the three brothers by metes and bounds and specific shares are given to each. In view of the recitals in Ex.D-4 we are of opinion that there is allotment of specific properties to individual coparceners and the document therefore falls within the mischief of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. It follows that Ex.D-4 is not admissible in evidence to prove the title of any of the coparceners to any particular property or to prove that any particular property has ceased to be joint property. Of course, the document is admissible to prove an intention on the part of the coparceners to become divided in status; in other words, to prove that the parties ceased to be joint from the date of the instrument dated December 27, 1943 (See the decision of this Court in Nanni Bai v. Gita Bai(1)]
This substantial question as formulated by this Court in the year 1996 was already, in fact, answered by the Supreme Court in 1968. It is clear from this judgment of the Supreme Court that the document can be used for proving the severance of status. As a result, I do not find any substance in the second appeal. It is dismissed.