AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
52 paragraphs · 2,538 words@JUDGMENT-JUDGMENT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Proceedings of this matter have been taken-up for final hearing through video conferencing.
This plaintiffs' / appellants' (herein) second appeal was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law, on 28-2- 2020: -
"Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in holding that Batwaranama (Ex.P-1) is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 ignoring the fact that no such plea was taken by defendant No.8 before the trial Court, by recording a finding which is perverse to the record?"
[For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred hereinafter as per their status shown and nomenclature given in the plaint before the trial Court.]
The dispute relates to the suit property bearing Khasra No.7377/1, area 0.27 hectare, earlier owned by Chandulal Dewangan. It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the lifetime of Chandulal Dewangan, he partitioned all his properties to his six sons and one daughter and the suit property came in the share of Tijulal Dewangan (their father) vide Ex.P-1 dated 6-1-1991, but defendant No.8 (Smt. Kamla Bai) taking the advantage of order dated 28-2-1994 got it mutated in her name on the basis of Ex.D-1 which led to filing of suit by the plaintiffs / appellants herein seeking declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the aforesaid suit land in which defendant No.8 mainly setup the plea vide Ex.D-1 that the suit land came in her share and therefore the plaintiffs, who are the legal representatives of Tijulal Dewangan, had no right and title over the suit land and therefore the suit be dismissed.
The trial Court relying upon Ex.P-1 held that by Ex.P-1 the suit property fell in the share of Tijulal Dewangan and the plaintiffs being the successors- in-interest of Tijulal Dewangan, have got the property and Ex.D-1 is not reliable, it was never signed by the legal heirs of Chandulal Dewangan and therefore decreed the suit and declared the title of the plaintiffs and also directed for deletion of the name of defendant No.8 and entering the names of the plaintiffs.
Feeling aggrieved against the judgment & decree of the trial Court, only defendant No.8 preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court questioning the same. The first appellate Court by the impugned judgment & decree allowed the appeal solely on the ground that Ex.P-1 requires registration and in view of the provisions contained in Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the document Ex.P-1 is inadmissible in evidence, therefore, no title is conferred to the plaintiffs against which this second appeal has been preferred and substantial question of law has been formulated which has been incorporated in the opening paragraph of this judgment for the sake of completeness.
Mr. R.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein / plaintiffs, in his written submission, has submitted that defendant No.8 did not expressly took the plea that Ex.P-1 is unregistered and therefore it is not admissible in evidence, otherwise, the plaintiffs could have taken appropriate pleading, as Ex.P-1 is only a document acknowledging the prior partition and it does not require registration and as such, in absence of plea having been taken, the first appellate Court has allowed the plea to be taken which has caused serious prejudice to the plaintiffs. Even otherwise, the plea of registrability of Ex.P-1 is a mixed question of law and fact which ought to have been taken by appropriate pleading in the written statement and in view of that the second appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment & decree be set aside.
Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 herein / defendant No.8, would submit that it is a pure question of law and therefore the first appellate Court has rightly held the document to inadmissible in evidence which cannot be taken exception to being the settled legal position. He relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Ningappa Marbasappa Arleshwar v. Gyanaji Pomaji Marwadi AIR 1927 Bom 157; the decision of the Madras High Court in the matter of Kotamreddi Seetamma v. Vannelakanti Krishnaswamy Row and another AIR 1917 Mad 718; and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Egon Zhender International Pvt. Ltd. v. Namgayal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art & Culture (Nirlac) & others 2013 (139) DRJ 202 to buttress his submission and as such, the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.
None present for respondents No.2 to 8 herein, though served.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions made herein-above and went through the record with utmost circumspection.
The suit property was earlier held by Chandulal Dewangan and during his lifetime, he is said to have partitioned the suit property amongst his six sons and one daughter. Defendant No.8 is the only daughter of Chandulal Dewangan and vide Ex.P-1 the dispute was settled by reducing the Batwaranama into writing in which the suit property fell in the share of the plaintiffs' father Tijulal Dewangan. Ex.P-1 was signed by all the parties, whereas it has not been signed by defendant No.8. But the trial Court relying upon the testimony of Madanlal (PW-4) came to a specific conclusion that Ex.P-1 is a valid document and it has been reduced into writing in presence of the parties and all the sons of Chandulal Dewangan were present and it is binding on defendant No.8 also. The trial Court has also held that defendant No.8 never opposed the said partition Ex.P-1 at any point of time and further held that Ex.D-1 is not a valid document as it was not signed by any of the sons of Chandulal Dewangan which the first appellate Court has reversed on the ground that Ex.P-1 is unregistered document. Detailed written statement has been filed on perusal of which it would reveal that no plea with regard to non-registrability of Ex.P-1 was taken by defendant No.8. A careful perusal of Ex.P-1 would show that it is styled as Batwaranama which states as under: -
संपत्ति का बंटवारा संबंधी बंटवारानामा
स्वर्गीय दाऊ चन्दुलाल देवांगन वल्द स्वर्गीय पीलासाव देवांगन सुपेला बस्ती जिला दुर्ग वाले का संपत्ति का हितग्राहियों में विभाजन.
श्री सुंदर लाल देवांगन प्रथम पुत्र हिस्सेदार को आटाचक्की के पीछे निर्मित दो मंजिला मकान एवं तीन दुकान सहित दिया गया है।
श्री श्याम लाल देवांगन द्वितीय पुत्र हिस्सेदार को आटाचक्की एवं उससे लगा हुआ दुकान एवं मकान में सामान सहित दिया गया है।
श्री तीजू लाल देवांगन (तृतीय पुत्र) हिस्सेदार को दुर्गा मंदिर के सामने निर्मित बीच का दुकान जिसमें कोमल बर्तन भंडार किराये दार है एवं संधवार खार की शेष 12 प्लाट ख. नं. 305 का टुकड़ा को दिया गया है।
श्रीमति झुनिया बाई जौजे स्व. भूषण लाल देवांगन (चतुर्थ पुत्र हिस्सेदार को श्री सुंदर लाल देवांगन को प्राप्त दो मंजिला मकान के पीछे कच्चा एवं पक्का मकान एक दुकान मय बोरिंग सैप्टिक लैट्रींग सहित दिया गया है।
श्री बाबू लाल देवांगन (पंचम पुत्र हिस्सेदार को आरसी टाइपिंग इंस्टीट्यूट से अजंता स्टूडियो एवं मदन लाल देवांगन का मकान मय सेप्टीक लैट्रींग सहित रमेश वाली गली को छोड़कर दिया गया पानी निकासी की नाली का उपयोग तीनों परिवार करेंगे।
श्रीमति कमला बाई जौजे सीताराम देवांगन (एकमात्र पुत्री को दुर्गा मंदिर के सामने निर्मित दुकान नं. - 3 जिसमें ज्वेलर्स दुकान है उसके सीधे से आधा कुंआ तक कच्चा पक्का मकान मय सीढ़ी एवं गोस्वामी से खरीदा गया दुकान जिसमें औषधालय है। वह उसे दान स्वरूप दिया गया है।
श्री मदन लाल देवांगन छठवा पुत्र हिस्सेदार को आनंद भवन का पूरा हिस्सा मय पीछे कुंआ एवं बाड़ी और उसके मकान के एवज में आंनद भवन में लगा हुआ तीन दुकान दिया गया है। 8. श्रीमति कमला बाई जौजे रमेश कुमार देवांगन (पपौत्र वधू को दुर्गा मंदिर के सामने निर्मित दो सटर वाला दुकान क्र. - 1 एवं दुकान 1 व दुकान - 2 के पीछे लगा हुआ पक्का मकान बीच की गली सहित मान सिंग यादव की आखरी पर्दा तक आधा कुंआ सहित दिया गया है। उक्त संपत्ति उसे बाबा स्व. चंदुलाल देवांगन की देखभाल व सेवा के लिए सभी भाईयों ने उपहार स्वरूप दान में दी गई है।
दुर्गा मंदिर के पीछे का चंदु लाल का बेयरा जो अभी स्व. भूषणलाल देवांगन के धर्मशाला हेतु निकाला गया था उसे चंदुलाल के नाम से धमार्थ धर्मशाला के रूप में सभी रिश्तेदार/हिस्सेदार विकसित करेंगे।
कोहका की 40 डिसमिल जमीन को कोई हिस्सेदार रखाकर कर्ज का भुगतान करेगा। दूसरी अवस्था में उसे बेचेगा एवं शेष रकम बराबर हिस्सेदारांे में बांट दी जावेगी जल्द भुगतान हेतु कर्ज की रकम के लिए सभी हिस्सेदार जिम्मेदार होंगे बैंक में जमा राशि में से 10 हजार रूपये श्री श्याम लाल देवांगन एवं शेष रकम श्रीमति झुनिया बाई को हिस्सेदारों द्वारा प्रदान की जावेगी यह रकम चुंदलाल की क्रिया कर्म के लिए हिस्सेदारों की स्वी..ति से निकाली गई है। क्रिया कर्म का बाकी रकम हिस्सेदारों द्वारा अनुपात में दी जावेगी।
ठेला से प्राप्त आय हिस्सेदारों में बांटी जावेगी कर्ज संबंधी भुगतान हिस्सेदारों द्वारा वैध करार दिये जाने पर या लिखित होने पर ही भुगतान की पात्रता होगी।
हिस्सेदारों के हस्ताक्षर
सही/- सुंदर लाल
सही/- श्याम लाल
सही/- तीजू लाल
4.
सही/- बाबू लाल
सही/- मदन लाल
नोटः- आपसी इकरारनामे के अंतर्गत सभी हितग्राहियों को हस्ताक्षर करना आवश्यक है। अन्यथा शेष हितग्राहियों की हस्ताक्षर मान्य होगी एवं भविष्य में वह अपना हिस्सा नहीं लेता है तो एक वर्ष बाद शेष सभी संपत्ति बाकी हिस्सेदारों को बांट दी जावेगी और किसी प्रकार की कानूनी कार्यवाही अवैध मानी जावेगी।
हस्ताक्षर हिस्सेदारों के
सही/- सुंदर लाल
सही/- श्याम लाल
सही/- तीजू लाल
4.
सही/- बाबू लाल
सही/- मदन लाल
उक्त हस्ताक्षरकर्ता आज से श्री चंदुलाल की संपत्ति की व्यक्तिगत रूप से प्राप्त संपत्ति की वैध हकदार करार किए जाते हैं।
A careful perusal of the Batwaranama Ex.P-1 would show that it is capable of two constructions, firstly, that it is acknowledgment of the earlier partition and secondly, it is a partition in presenti falling within the ambit of Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, warranting compulsory registration. The fact remains that if the plea of registrability could have been raised by defendant No.8 before the trial Court, the plaintiffs could have very well amended the plaint or could have taken an appropriate stand with regard to registrability of Ex.P-1 which they have been deprived of in absence of any specific plea taken by defendant No.8 before the trial Court and the first appellate Court without going into the question as to whether such a plea has been taken or not before the trial Court, proceeded to examine by taking the plaintiffs by surpirse and held that since Ex.P-1 is not a registered instrument, therefore, no title has been conferred to the plaintiffs' father Tijulal Dewangan and thereafter to the plaintiffs.
Failure to register a document and its consequences are mixed questions of fact and law: facts being the nature of the document, the inter se status of the parties, their antecedent rights, their intention, whether the document records a prior oral family settlement or the documents confers and divests proprietary rights in immovable property exceeding ₹ 100/- or it is a partition in presenti. Therefore, a plea based upon non-registration of a document is, therefore, a mixed question of fact and law, that must be pleaded and based upon specific and material evidence. (See Chanan Singh and others v. Surjit Singh and others (2009) 154 PLR 278.) In the absence of any pleadings much less specific, and any evidence much less material evidence, the question of non-registration of Ex.P-1 - Batwaranama ought not to have been permitted to be raised for the first time during arguments in the first appeal, as on account of not raising the plea and thereby not framing the issue serious prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs.
The position of law has been made abundantly clear by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others (1976) 3 SCC 119 in which it has been held as under: -
"... the principle that there is no estoppel against the statute does not apply to the present case. Assuming, however, that the said document was compulsorily registrable the Courts have generally held that a family arrangement being binding on the parties to it would operate as an estoppel by preventing the parties after having taken advantage under the arrangement to resile from the same or try to revoke it. This principle has been established by several decisions of this Court as also of the Privy Council. ..."
Reverting finally to the facts of the present case, it is quite vivid that whether the document Ex.P-1 requires registration or not, is a pure and simple mixed question of fact and law and in absence of pleading much less evidence by defendant No.8 before the trial Court, serious prejudice has been caused to the plaintiffs, as if the said plea could have been raised, it was open to the plaintiffs to raise a specific ground that it was not a partition deed warranting registration by virtue of Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, but it is a prior partition which has been reduced into writing by acknowledging it and which ground is apparently available to the plaintiffs to be debatable looking to the contents of the document Ex.P-1. Once the parties have settled their dispute amicably, particularly Chandulal Dewangan himself during his lifetime has partitioned his entire estate between his six sons and one daughter, once for all, in presence of parties, the first appellate Court ought not to have allowed the issue of registrability of Ex.P-1 to be reopened on the basis of plea which was never pressed into service by defendant No.8 before the trial Court and which resulted in serious prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs qua Ex.P-1 by which the dispute has been settled finally between the parties.
In my considered opinion, the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in reversing the judgment & decree of the trial Court on the basis of holding Ex.P-1 to be compulsorily registrable by recording a finding which is perverse to the record and based on the plea which was never raised by defendant No.8 before the trial Court. As such, judgment & decree of the first appellate Court deserve to be set-aside and that of the trial Court deserve to be restored.
The judgments cited by Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 herein / defendant No.8, are clearly distinguishable on facts to that of the present case and in view of the finding recorded herein- above.
In view of the aforesaid, the judgment & decree of the first appellate Court are set-aside and that of the trial Court are restored and consequently, the substantial question of law is answered accordingly.
The second appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost(s).
Decree be drawn-up accordingly.