2016 (7) TMI 1645 - SC - Indian Laws

Absence of conveyance deed - relinquishment of rights - patta was granted in favour of the defendant after filing of the suit - defendant has failed to prove his independent income to pay the amount for grant of land - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the defendant and the plaintiffs are sons of late Narayana. It is also available on record that Narayana had two daughters who are married and have not claimed any right with regard to the suit scheduled property. The mother of the plaintiffs died in the year 1987. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 examined in the trial court as CWs 1 and 2 have stated that they do not claim share in the suit properties. Consequently the dispute pertaining to partition of the suit scheduled property was limited to plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and the appellant-defendant. When the terms of the family settlement/arrangement between the parties have been reduced to writing it has to be registered. But in the facts and circumstances of this case and the conduct of the parties Ex.D-22 appears to record the family settlement already arrived at between the parties. That Ex.D22-resolution was acted upon is also supported by the subsequent conduct of the parties. Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 retired from the army in 1988 and 1989 respectively - there was division of status among the brothers the defendant and plaintiffs No. 3 and 4 during the year 1995 or at the time when the defendant paid Rs.20, 000/- to plaintiffs No.3 and 4 for relinquishment of their interest in items No.1 and 2 or on 18.03.1995 when before panchayat resolution (Ex.D22) was passed. The judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 20.03.2008 in R.F.A. No.805 of 1998 is set aside so far as suit property items No.1 and 2 is concerned and respondents/plaintiffs suit for partition of items No.1 and 2 is dismissed - the impugned judgment is modified and it is held that all the four respondents/plaintiffs and appellant/defendant are entitled to 1/5 share each in item No.3. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Partition of joint family property (Items No.1 and 2).
2. Claim of self-acquired property by the appellant (Item No.3).
3. Validity of relinquishment of rights by plaintiffs No.3 and 4.
4. Entitlement of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to share in Item No.3.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Partition of Joint Family Property (Items No.1 and 2):
The respondents-plaintiffs argued that items No.1 and 2 were joint family properties managed by the appellant-defendant after their father's death. The trial court and High Court both held that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 were entitled to 1/3rd share each in items No.1 and 2, rejecting the appellant's claim that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 had relinquished their rights through a panchayat resolution and receipts (Exs. D14 and D23). The Supreme Court, however, found that the lower courts failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence, including the panchayat resolution (Ex.D22), which indicated a family settlement where plaintiffs No.3 and 4 had received money in lieu of their shares. The Court held that the relinquishment was valid and set aside the High Court's judgment regarding items No.1 and 2, dismissing the plaintiffs' suit for partition of these items.

2. Claim of Self-Acquired Property by the Appellant (Item No.3):
The appellant claimed that item No.3 was his self-acquired property, as he had encroached and developed it independently. The trial court and High Court rejected this claim, noting that the patta was granted to the appellant after the suit was filed and that he failed to prove the source of income for the T.T. fine payment. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, concluding that item No.3 was developed by the joint family and the patta granted to the appellant was for the benefit of the entire family.

3. Validity of Relinquishment of Rights by Plaintiffs No.3 and 4:
The appellant contended that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 had relinquished their rights to items No.1 and 2 through a panchayat resolution and receipts. The trial court and High Court held that without a registered conveyance deed, such relinquishment could not be established. The Supreme Court, however, recognized the panchayat resolution (Ex.D22) as a valid family arrangement and considered the subsequent conduct of the parties, which indicated that the resolution was acted upon. The Court concluded that the relinquishment was valid, reversing the lower courts' findings.

4. Entitlement of Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to Share in Item No.3:
Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had stated during the trial that they had no claim to items No.1 and 2 but did not explicitly relinquish their rights to item No.3. The Supreme Court held that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were entitled to a share in item No.3, as the patta was granted for the benefit of the family. However, the Court noted that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 could choose to relinquish their shares in favor of other parties during the final decree proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment regarding items No.1 and 2 and dismissing the suit for partition of these items. The Court modified the judgment concerning item No.3, holding that all parties (plaintiffs and defendant) were entitled to 1/5th share each. No order as to costs was made.