Kakkarla Vijaya and other vs Kakkarla Venkataiah

Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

The question raised in this CRP relates to the admissibility of the document dated 13-7-1992 produced by the petitioners/ defendants in the suit. The suit is filed by the respondent for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The defence is that the plaintiff-respondent himself executed a document dated 13-7-1992 styled as will deed wherein he allotted certain properties to the defendants with immediate rights and also provided that the remaining family properties shall go to them after his life-time. When the defendant sought to tender the said document in evidence, the plaintiff raised an objection with regard to its admissibility. By the impugned order the lower Court upheld the objection raised by the plaintiff and held that the said document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. It further held that the document in question cannot be admitted even for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of defendants as the main purpose of tendering the document in evidence is to show the terms of the document which cannot be said to be a collateral purpose.

In the decision of Chinnappareddigari Pedda Muthylareddy Vs. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy and Others, , a Full Bench of five judges of this Court held that though an unregistered partition deed cannot be looked into for terms of partition, it can be looked into for establishing severance in status. In the decision of this Court in Kaheeda Moin and Others Vs. Md. Iqbal Ali and Others, , a learned single Judge of this Court referring to the earlier decisions, held that though an unregistered partition deed cannot be let in evidence for establishing the terms of partition, it can be admitted in evidence for the limited collateral purpose of proving the factum of partition and nature of possession of the parties to the document. In C.S. Kumaraswami Gounder Vs. Aravagiri Gounder and Another, , the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that

"in the case of express completed partition, there are three different stages:

the stage of effecting a division in status;

the stage of dividing the properties by metes and bounds;

the stage of parties taking possession of the properties allotted to them."

It was further held that in respect of stages 1 and 3 even if there is a document it need not be registered, as the said stages cannot be said to "declare, assign, limit or extinguish" any right, title or interest to or in immovable property. It is only with regard to the second stage, namely, division of properties in different shares and allotment thereof to the various members, if the same is reduced to writing, it requires registration u/s 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. An unregistered partition deed though not admissible to prove the terms of the partition can be admitted in evidence for proving the stages (1) and (3) namely the division in status and the nature and character of the possession of the shares, these being collateral purposes.

It is also well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive and the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the document.

In view of the settled legal principles, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The CRP is accordingly allowed and it is held that the document dated 13-7-1992 can be admitted in evidence for the limited collateral purpose of proving the division in status and ascertaining the nature and character of possession of the properties. The truth of the document, which is disputed by the plaintiff, is left open to be decided at the time of trial. No costs.