Duraipandian vs Tamiljothi And 3 Others on 25 November, 1999

0
69
Madras High Court
Duraipandian vs Tamiljothi And 3 Others on 25 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 (2) CTC 574
Bench: S S Subramani

ORDER

1. The defendant in O.S.No.117 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tenkasi is the revision petitioner.

2. The said suit was filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs for partition. The revision petitioner is the son of the first wife of the fourth plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 are the daughters of the second wife of the fourth plaintiff. Alleging that the family remains undivided, the said suit was filed for partition. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, he alleged that between himself and the fourth plaintiff, there was an oral partition on the basis of the Panchayat and plaintiffs 1 to 3 also relinquished their claim and agreed for a division and on the basis of the panchayat held, the properties were taken possession. To substantiate that there was a panchayat and consequent oral partition, the petitioner relied upon a memorandum of settlement executed between himself and the fourth plaintiff

dated 21.4.1996 and he wanted the said document to be admitted in evidence. The respondents herein opposed the marking of the document on the ground that the document dated 21.4.1996 is compulsorily registerable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act and consequently, it should not be considered for any purpose. The lower Court accepted the objection and refused to mark the same. The same is challenged in this revision petition.

3. Before going into the merits of the case, it is better to consider the law on the point as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, AIR 1988 SC 881 wherein their Lordships considered the question under what circumstances, the registration of a document is necessary, It was held as follows:

“It is well settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under S. 17(1)(b) of the Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not require registration. The essence of the matter is whether the deed is a part of the partition transaction or contains merely an incidental recital of a previously completed transaction. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of a past transaction. It is equally well settled that a mere list of properties allotted at a partition is not an instrument of partition and does not require registration, section 17(1)(b) lays down that a document for which registration is compulsory should, by its own force, operate or purport to operate to create or declare some right in immovable property. Therefore, a mere recital of what has already taken place cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registering such a document. Two propositions must therefore flows (1) A partition may be effected orally; but if it is subsequently reduced into a form of a document and that document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not registered, S. 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. Secondly evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of S.91 of the Evidence Act. 1872. (2) partition lists which are mere records of a previously completed partition between the parties, will be admitted in evidence even though they are unregistered, to prove the fact of partition: see Mulla’s Registration Act. 8th Edn.pp.54-57.1b2

4. Again in the case of Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurudev Singh, , the said decision was followed by the Supreme Court herein it was held thus:

The memorandum Ex.A1 recording past partition put on record before the Rent Controller was not pronounced upon and, was brushed aside by the

appellate authority holding that it could not be seen in the absence of registration even though the decision of this Court in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, AIR 1988 SC 881: 1988 2 SCR 1106 stood eked, in which it was held that a subsequent memorandum recording past oral partition as a family settlement was not required to be registered. Memorandum. Ex.A1 when read, substantially discloses that the shop in dispute stood fallen to the share of the appellant. Besides two brothers of the appellant appeared as AW2 and AW5 and supported it. It records the fact of the past but for certainty the brothers had chosen to straighten things w.e.f. 23.2.1982 and the said notice Ex.A4 to the respondent was to the effect that the appellant was entitled to receive rent w.e.f. 1.3.1982. The Rent Controller did not fully grasp the legal situation in the manner and wrongly denied eviction of the respondent on that score. The appellate authority as also the High Court committed the same error,”

5. In the case of Ayyakannu Padayachi and three others v. Boorasamy and another, 1998 (2) LW 678, this Court has held as follows:

“A perusal of Ex.B1 shows that it was a mere record of understanding
reached between the parties earlier, pursuant to a panchayat. If can only be
stated to be a record of an agreement reached between the parties, after earlier
negotiations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the document does not require
registration.

6. On the basis of the above legal position, let us consider the question
as to whether the document sought to be marked requires registration or not.

In the beginning of the document, the deed begins with an introduction that
there was a panchayat and the father and son have already agreed for allotment

plaintiff
and the revision, petitioner. A reading of the document is very clear that it
records only a past transaction and the division has already taken place on the
basis of the panchayat, and no interest is created on the basis of the instrument.

7. The order of the lover Court holding that the document Is
compulsorily registerable is not correct. The lower Court has not taken into
consideration the first, paragraph in the document sought to be marked. The
order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside, in view of the clear legal
position stated above.

8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the above C.M.P.is dismissed.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *