Unregistered Partition Deed Including Palupatti May Be Relied Upon For Limited Collateral Purposes Of Proving Severance Of Joint Family Status: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that an unregistered partition deed, including the palupatti, may be relied upon for the limited collateral purposes of proving severance of the joint family status and title.

The Court was hearing a Civil Appeal arising from the Judgment and Decree of the Karnataka High Court by which it affirmed the Judgment and preliminary decree of the Principal Civil Judge.

The three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed, “An unregistered partition deed, including the palupatti in the present case, may be relied upon for the limited collateral purposes of proving severance of the joint family status and title, explaining the nature of possession, recording the arrangement made thereunder, and evidencing the parties’ subsequent conduct as was observed by this Court in various judgements such as Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama, Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and K.G. Shivalingappa v. G.S. Eswarappa.”

The Bench said that a family arrangement recorded in writing, when relied upon only to explain how the parties thereafter held and enjoyed the properties, does not require registration for that limited collateral use.

AOR Hetu Arora Sethi represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

All parties descended from Pillappa, the common ancestor. The Plaintiffs and Defendants included his sons and daughters. The Appellants before the Court were the legal heirs of late P. Anjanappa (deceased), who was arrayed as Defendant No. 5 before the Trial Court. The deceased had contested the suit. The Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District had decreed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. This was challenged before the High Court, which dismissed the Appeal and affirmed the preliminary decree. Hence, the case was before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Having perused the original records, including the registered instruments, deposition of the parties, and the contemporaneous revenue extracts placed before us, we are satisfied that both Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 are duly proved and carry legal effect.”

The Court remarked that the High Court, while accepting that the deed partook the character of an instrument of partition for stamp purposes, declined to give effect to it on the footing that proper valuation and stamp duty were not demonstrated and that, in any case, it had not been acted upon. It added that such approach is unsustainable for multiple reasons.

“Firstly, the deed is registered and was admitted in evidence; no timely, specific objection on stamp duty was pressed to a logical conclusion at the stage of marking, and the instrument having been received in evidence, its admissibility on that score cannot be re-agitated at the appellate stage. Secondly, even if one were to regard Ex.D 16 through the lens of a family arrangement, the law leans strongly in favour of upholding such settlements among close relations where consideration has passed and possession has followed. Here, there is both consideration and unequivocal admission of execution. Thirdly, the “acted upon” objection is misplaced on the facts and in principle”, it said.

The Court emphasised that where execution is admitted, consideration is shown, and later conduct corroborates severance, Courts ought not to defeat a registered relinquishment by demanding proof of superadded formalities.

“We therefore disapprove the principal reasons furnished by the Trial Court and the High Court. The Trial Court erred in treating “non-mention” in a later document and an asserted want of “acting upon” as fatal to Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 despite the admissions and presumptions that attached to them. The High Court compounded the error by invoking stamp characterisation to withhold effect from Ex.D-16 after admitting it in evidence and after acknowledging its tenor, and by failing to appreciate that the deeds carried their own operative force and were reinforced by subsequent conduct”, it observed.

The Court enunciated that severance of joint status can be brought about by an unequivocal declaration reduced to writing or otherwise, and a writing evidencing such disruption is admissible to prove the fact of disruption, the arrangement, and the character of subsequent possession.

“In our considered opinion, the reality of disruption is tested by a cumulative assessment of conduct that includes separate possession, separate cultivation, separate residence, independent dealings with the lands allotted, and revenue records that consistently reflect such separation. Where the allotted lands are situated in different villages with distinct survey numbers, an insistence on further partition as a precondition to infer disruption misdirects the inquiry, because the determinative question is whether the joint status stood severed and the subsequent enjoyment was separate”, it also clarified.

Conclusion

The Court further noted that the properties acquired after February 11, 1972 do not form accretions to a subsisting coparcenary and fall to the acquirer’s separate estate, subject to any proven joint purchase and the daughters, who were not coparceners at the material time, do not obtain a coparcenary share by virtue of a disruption that took place before 2004.

“We therefore hold that Ex.D-17, read with Ex.D-17(a), is admissible and reliable for the collateral purposes of proving that, on and from 11.02.1972, there was severance of joint status between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 and that each thereafter held and enjoyed separately the properties allotted under Ex.D-17(a). We clarify that Ex.D 17 is not treated as a conveyance that creates or extinguishes rights by itself. Our conclusion rests on the severance of status and on the character of subsequent possession and enjoyment as borne out by the writing and the long course of conduct”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and set aside the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- P. Anjanappa (D) By LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1286)

Appearance:

Appellants: AOR Hetu Arora Sethi

Respondents: Senior Advocate Shekhar G Devasa, AOR Rajeev Singh, Advocates Srinivas Gowda, Manish Tiwari, Thashmitha Muthanna, and Shashi Bhushan Nagar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment