Document Of Partition Which Provides For Effectuating Division Of Properties In Future Is Not Compulsorily Registrable

Case: K. Arumuga Velaiah vs P.R. Ramasamy

Coram: Justices L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: CA 2564 OF 2012

Court Observation: “…..The said document which has been styled as an award is, in our view, only a memorandum of understanding/family arrangement to be acted upon in future. Hence, in our considered view, the said document did not create rights in specific properties or assets of the family, in favour of specific persons. Therefore, the same did not require registration under section 17 (1) (e) of the Act. The said document was in the nature of a document envisaged under section 17 (2) (v) of the Act”

“Having regard to the aforesaid provisions of law it can be safely concluded that the said award was a mere arrangement to divide the properties in future by metes and bounds as distinguished from an actual deed of partition under which there is not only a severance of status but also division of joint family properties by metes and bounds in specific properties. Hence it was exempted from registration under Section 17 (2) (v) of the Act. A document of partition which provides for effectuating a division of properties in future would be exempt from registration under section 17 (2) (v). The test in such a case is whether the document itself creates an interest in a specific immovable property or merely creates a right to obtain another document of title. If a document does not by itself create a right or interest in immovable property, but merely creates a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed create a right in the person claiming relief, the former document does not require registration and is accordingly admissible in evidence”

“The partition of the ancestral/joint family properties having found to have taken place in the 1964 and the same having been acted upon, a fresh suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties was not at all maintainable. The principle of res judicata squarely applies in the present case.”

Previous Posts

Leniency Can’t Be Shown For Drunken Driving Merely Because No Major Accident Occurred: Supreme Court

Revisional Jurisdiction Of NCDRC Extremely Limited, Reiterates Supreme Court

Section 372 CrPC – Victim’s Right To Prefer Appeal Against Acquittal Absolute, Not Necessary To Obtain Special Leave: Supreme Court

Daughters Right To Inherit Self-Acquired Property Of Father Dying Intestate Recognized Under Customary Hindu Law: Supreme Court

High Court While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 401 CrPC Cannot Convert Acquittal Into Conviction: Supreme Court

CPC – Application To Amend Admissions Can Be Entertained Even After Judgment Is Reserved Under Order XII Rule 6: Delhi High Court

Magistrate Not Required To Record Statement Of Public Servant Who Filed Complaint Before Summoning Accused: Supreme Court

If Last Seen Theory Is Established, Accused Should Explain Circumstances In Which He Departed Company Of Deceased: Supreme Court

Res Judicata Is Not A Ground To Reject A Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC: Supreme Court Download Judgement