Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-003934-003934 – 2006 |
| Diary Number | 4352/2006 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Hindu Law; Civil Procedure; Evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that duly proved registered release deeds by coparceners operate immediately to divest their interests without requiring further “act” and attract the presumption under Evidence Act Sections 90/89; unregistered family settlement writing may be used collaterally to prove severance of joint status and explain separate possession; ancestral properties and specified movables form the hotchpot while jointly purchased assets and their accretions stand outside, with shares computed by reference to surviving coparceners at the ancestor’s death under unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353; Elumalai v. M. Kamala (2023) 13 SCC 27; Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama (2018) 15 SCC 130; Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao (2015) 16 SCC 787; Kalyani v. Narayanan (1980) Supp SCC 298; Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa (2019) 6 SCC 409; Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh (2006) 1 SCC 148 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Coparcenary line traced to ancestor, whose death in 1969 triggered notional partition suit over ancestral (Schedule A), movables (Schedule C), and jointly purchased assets (Schedule B). Defendant 5 relied on two release deeds (1956 and 1967) and a 1972 palupatti; plaintiffs denied their effect and contended properties remained joint. Trial Court and High Court rejected releases and palupatti, decreed partition with defined shares; Supreme Court granted appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Follows | Prem Singh v. Birbal; Elumalai v. M. Kamala; Kalyani v. Narayanan; Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Registered release deeds by coparceners divest interests immediately upon proof and need not be “acted upon.”
- Unregistered family settlement (palupatti) is admissible collateral evidence to establish severance of joint status and explain subsequent separate possession.
- Partitionable pool is confined to ancestral properties and specified movables; jointly purchased assets and their accretions are excluded and held in defined moieties.
- Reinforces presumption of genuineness of registered instruments under Evidence Act and principle of equitable estoppel against inconsistent claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Validity of Release Deeds
- Ex.D-15 (1956) and Ex.D-16 (1967) are registered releases; no cross-examination challenged execution or contents.
- Presumption under Evidence Act Sections 90/89 arises; burden to rebut unrebutted.
- “Acted upon” requirement held unnecessary; releases operate inter partes to sever coparcenary rights.
-
Collateral Admissibility of Palupatti
- Ex.D-17/17(a) is unregistered family arrangement; marked for collateral purpose.
- Attested by panchayatdars, consistent revenue entries, separate cultivation and residence from 1972.
- Follows precedents on collateral use (Sita Ram Bhama, Thulasidhara); admissible to prove severance and character of possession.
-
Partitionable Estate and Shares
- Partitionable pool: Schedule A and items 1–16 of Schedule C.
- Exclude Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C; held half by defendant 5 and half by defendant 6.
- Notional partition on ancestor’s death under unamended Section 6 HSA: surviving coparceners were plaintiff 1 and defendant 5; ancestor’s 1/3 devolved equally among seven children (five daughters and the two sons), augmenting sons’ shares to 8/21 each and daughters’ branches to 1/21 each; released sons take none.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Defendant 5):
- Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 are valid registered releases divesting plaintiff 2 and defendant 3.
- Ex.D-17 palupatti proves severance of joint family status and separate possession.
- Schedule B is self-acquisition; defendant 6 a name-lender.
Plaintiffs (Respondents):
- Releases were not “acted upon” and hence ineffective.
- Palupatti is unregistered and inadmissible.
- All properties remained joint family assets.
Defendant 6:
- Claimed half share in Schedule B and item 17 as joint purchaser.
Lessee (Defendant 7):
- Admitted rent payment to defendant 5, willing to deposit future rents in court.
Factual Background
The parties, descendants of a common ancestor, contested partition of ancestral lands (Schedule A), movables (Schedule C), and lands jointly purchased in 1974 (Schedule B). Defendant 5 pleaded two release deeds by co-heirs in 1956 and 1967, and a family settlement (palupatti) in 1972. Trial Court treated the releases as ineffectual and rejected palupatti for lack of registration, decreeing partition with defined fractional shares. High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted appeal to examine the legal effect of the deeds and the admissibility of the palupatti and to recompute shares.
Statutory Analysis
- Indian Evidence Act 1872: Sections 90/89 establish presumption of genuineness for registered documents over thirty years old.
- Registration Act 1908: Section 17(1)(b) mandates registration for instruments affecting immovables; Section 17(2)(i) and (vi) exempt family/composition deeds and merged decrees.
- Hindu Succession Act 1956: Unamended Section 6 prescribes notional partition on ancestor’s death among surviving coparceners and devolution to heirs.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed