9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership and possession of the property marked B2. 2. Admissibility of document Exh. P-12 under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 3. Nature of the document Exh. P-12 as a memorandum of family arrangement or an instrument of partition. Summary: Ownership and Possession of Property Marked B2: The plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and possession of property marked B2, alternatively seeking partition and separate possession. The dispute centered on whether the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of B2, which hinged on the interpretation of document Exh. P-12 dated 3rd August 1955. The plaintiffs claimed that B2 was allotted to them in a partition, while the defendants contested this claim. The learned Single Judge concluded that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of B2, based on the partition of 1955 and a subsequent settlement dated 31st January 1971. Admissibility of Document Exh. P-12: The primary contention was whether Exh. P-12 required registration under s. 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and if it was inadmissible for want of registration under s. 49 of the Act. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench construed Exh. P-12 as a memorandum of family arrangement, not an instrument of partition, and thus admissible under the proviso to s. 49 of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that Exh. P-12 was a mere memorandum recording a decision on partition and did not itself effect a change in legal relations. Nature of Document Exh. P-12: The Supreme Court analyzed whether Exh. P-12 was an instrument of partition or merely a memorandum of family arrangement. The Court noted that the document contained recitals of past events and did not embody the expression of will necessary to effect a change in legal relations. The Court emphasized that a document that merely records a past partition does not require registration. The Court also highlighted that Exh. P-12 could be used for collateral purposes, such as proving the nature and character of possession. The Court further elaborated that the document Exh. P-12, along with the confirmatory panch faisla Exh. P-1, recorded a family arrangement intended to settle competing claims and secure peace within the family. The Court cited precedents to support the principle that such family arrangements do not require registration as they do not create or declare new rights but acknowledge pre-existing titles. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that Exh. P-12 was a memorandum of family arrangement and not an instrument of partition requiring registration. The document was admissible for proving the nature of possession and the arrangement of family properties. The plaintiffs were declared the owners in possession of property marked B2, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
