Registration — Partition deed or memorandum of oral partition — Registration Act, 1908 section 17(1)(b), 49.

The plaintiffs were residents of Bangalore. They claim that the suit properties were their joint family properties. The family consisted of over one hundred and twenty members. It was the case of the plaintiffs that in order to enjoy the family properties separately a ‘panchayath partition’ was effected and was reduced to writing on 20-2-1990. The particulars of the items of the property allotted to the plaintiffs’ branch forms the suit properties. The plaintiffs as well as the other members of the several branches of the family had subscribed their hand to the family arrangement and settlement and the respective parties had over a period of time enjoyed their respective shares. The revenue records were similarly effected in the names of the respective parties. It is the plaintiffs’ claim that they have secured one acre of land as their share. The defendant No. 4, who is a stranger to the family sought to interfere with the a part of land. It was found that the claim of the fourth defendant was that he had purchased the same from the first defendant without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs, though it was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. The first defendant had no right or interest which he could convey in favour of the fourth defendant. It was in that background that the suit was filed for declaration in respect of the said item of land. The moot question was whether the document of panchayath partition was a memorandum of partition or it was to be construed as a partition deed, and whether it was invalid for want of registration, in which event, it could not be relied upon in evidence and could not be the basis for the appellant’s case.

The Court observed that as per the tenor of the document in question, it is not as if there was an oral arrangement between the parties several years prior to the execution of the document. Such an agreement preceded the execution of the document. Therefore it was a continuous process whereby the parties had discussed the terms of settlement and had reduced it into writing, dividing the properties amongst themselves and therefore, it was in the nature of a partition deed and cannot be construed as a memorandum of oral partition. If that position is accepted, the law of the land would require that the document be registered. Though partition amongst the Hindus may be effected orally, if the parties reduce it in writing to a formal document which is intended to be evidence of partition, it would have the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property was allotted in partition and thus the document would be required to be compulsorily registered u/s. 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908. However, if the document did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, it would be outside the purview of section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act.

In view of the above, there is no substance in the contention put forth that the document in the case on hand was a mere record of a family arrangement that had taken place much earlier. It was a partition deed which was compulsorily registerable u/s. 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, it was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and could not have been relied upon as the basis to claim that there was an earlier partition.