Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17 and 49 – Admissibility of document in evidence – Appellant-plaintiff and respondentdefendant after death of their father, recorded a memorandum of settlement as decided by their father regarding his self-acquired properties – Plaintiff claimed that defendant broke open the lock of the house and took possession of the house – Civil suit was filed by the plaintiff for decree of possession and permanent injunction against the defendant – In suit, plaintiff also filed the memorandum of settlement evidencing family settlement – Defendant filed application u/Or. XIII, r.3 claiming that memorandum of settlement being not properly stamped and not being a registered document was not admissible in evidence – Trial Court allowed the application – Writ petition filed against the order of trial Court dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: After the death of plaintiff ’s father, defendant and their mother as well as sisters became the legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act inheriting the property being class I heirs – The memorandum of settlement divided the entire property between plaintiff and defendant which document was also claimed to be signed by their mother as well as sisters – Since, there was relinquishment of the rights of other heir of the properties, the memorandum of settlement was compulsorily registrable u/s.17 of the Registration Act – Document being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence – Trial Court was right in holding the document as inadmissible – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. XIII, r.3 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Registration Act, 1908 – s.17 – Unregistered document – Partition Suit – Whether the document which is inadmissible in evidence could be used for any collateral purpose – Held: In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds – Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded – In instant case, document may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant gets the document impounded and pay the stamp duty together with penalty. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The memorandum of settlement dated 09.09.94 was not mere memorandum of family settlement rather a family settlement itself. Firstly, on 25.10.1992, the father of the parties was himself owner of both, the residence and shop being his selfacquired properties. The High Court has rightly held that the said document cannot be said to be a Will, so that father could have made Will in favour of his two sons,plaintiff and defendant. Neither the plaintiff nor defendant had any share in the property on the day when it is said to have been partitioned by their father. After death of their father plaintiff, defendant and their mother as well as sisters become the legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act,1956 inheriting the property being a class I heir. The document dated 09.09.1994 divided the entire property between plaintiff and defendant which document is also claimed to be signed by their mother as well as the sisters. In any view of the matter, there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties, hence, courts below are right in their conclusion that there being relinquishment, the document dated 09.09.1994 was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. [Para 10] [508-D-G]
2. The document dated 09.09.1994 was compulsorily registrable. The document also being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence and order of trial court in allowing the application of the defendant holding the document as inadmissible cannot be faulted. [Para 12] [510-D]
3. There is only one aspect of the matter which needs consideration, i.e., whether the document dated 09.09.1994 which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. Further, an unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. In instant case, document dated 09.09.1994 may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant get the document impounded and pay the stamp duty together with penalty. [Paras 13 and 15] [510-E-F; 511-E]
Kale and Others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others (1976) 3 SCC 119; Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Others (2015) 16 SCC 787 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.