LexP. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRS versus A.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 423 : 2025 INSC 1286 P. Anjanappa (D) By Lrs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2006) 06 November 2025 [Vikram Nath,* Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the registered release deeds are valid and binding, and if so, what is their legal effect on the membership and share entitlements of plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3; whether the document styled as the palupatti-partition deed can be relied upon for collateral purposes to establish severance of status as well as the nature of subsequent possession and enjoyment; and what constitutes the partitionable estate and how the shares are to be worked out inter se the parties, including the treatment of Schedule “B” property and item no. 17 of “C” schedule and the extent to which the co-ownership of defendant no. 6 is to be preserved. Headnotes† Family settlement – Joint family property – Registered release deeds document styled as the palupatti- partition deed – Reliance – Suit for partition and separate possession – Suit schedule properties comprised of three parts: Schedule A-immovable properties belong to one, (now deceased), continued as joint family properties; Schedule B - immovable properties purchased under a registered sale deed; Schedule C-movables, including, inter alia, an item representing amounts realised by way of rent from the Schedule B properties – Parties trace lineage to one-common ancester – Dispute regarding partition of Schedule B properties – Suit for partition and separate possession of their alleged shares in the suit schedules, together with consequential accounts including mesne profits by the plaintiff no. 1 and 2 – Plaintiff contended that the said properties blended with the income of the joint family and were also subject to partition whereas the defendant contended that during the lifetime of deceased registered release deed has been executed and after deceased’s death partition was recorded in a palupatti- * Author 424 [2025] 11 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports partition deed, pursuant to which they had been in separate possession and enjoyment – Trial Court decreed the suit by a preliminary decree – In appeal thereagainst, the High Court dismissed the appeal – Correctness: Held: Under Hindu law, 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 – 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 – Having perused the original records, including the registered instruments, deposition of the parties, and the contemporaneous revenue extracts, both the registered release deed are duly proved and carry legal effect – One registered release deed severed plaintiff no. 2 from the coparcenary in 1956 and bars any claim by him to the joint family estate, and the other severed defendant no. 3 from the coparcenary in 1967 and bars any claim by him to the joint family estate – In consequence, as on the death of the propositus in 1969, the subsisting coparcenary comprised only plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 – 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, explaining the nature of possession, recording the arrangement made thereunder, and evidencing the parties’ subsequent conduct – Document styled as palupatti, 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 the partition deed and shall not be treated as a conveyance that creates or extinguishes rights by itself – Partitionable pool shall consist of Schedule A and items 1 to 16 of Schedule C – Shares over this pool fixed for plaintiff no. 1, defendant no. 5, each of the five daughters, predeceased daughter to be given effect in favour of defendant no. 2 as representing her estate – Plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 take no share – Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C are excluded fr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.