9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of partition agreement - Admissibility of unstamped documents as evidence Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, where the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Gurdaspur were modified. The parties were full brothers who were part of a joint Hindu family, and a partition agreement was reached in 1934 after the death of their father. 2. The appellant filed a suit in 1939 seeking a partition of the joint family property, claiming that he and the respondent remained joint after the 1934 partition. The respondent contended that a further partition occurred in 1939, supported by oral evidence and two memoranda marked "C" and "D" which were not stamped or registered. 3. The trial Judge found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the oral evidence presented by the respondent was unsatisfactory and the unstamped documents could not be admitted as evidence. The High Court of Lahore, on appeal, held that the partition in 1939 was proven by oral evidence and considered the unstamped documents as corroborative evidence. 4. The Privy Council disagreed with the High Court's interpretation, emphasizing that under the Indian Stamp Act, unstamped documents cannot be admitted as evidence for any purpose. They held that the oral evidence presented by witnesses, supported by actions such as separate land revenue payments and income tax returns, established a physical division of property in 1939, indicating a severance in the parties' status. 5. Consequently, the Privy Council dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision regarding the partition in 1939. The appellant was granted a declaration for a half share in joint agricultural lands and a preliminary decree for the partition of properties mentioned in the unstamped documents. The Court clarified that the documents were not used as evidence but for identification purposes, and upheld the costs of the appeal to be borne by the appellant.
|
