LexSITA RAM BHAMA versus RAMVATAR BHAMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
503
SITA RAM BHAMA
v.
RAMVATAR BHAMA
(Civil Appeal No. 3171 of 2018)
MARCH 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Registration Act, 1908 – ss.17 and 49 – Admissibility of
document in evidence – Appellant-plaintiff and respondent-
defendant after death of their father, recorded a memorandum of
settlement as decided by their father regarding his self-acquired
properties – Plaintiff claimed that defendant broke open the lock
of the house and took possession of the house – Civil suit was filed
by the plaintiff for decree of possession and permanent injunction
against the defendant – In suit, plaintiff also filed the memorandum
of settlement evidencing family settlement – Defendant filed
application u/Or. XIII, r.3 claiming that memorandum of settlement
being not properly stamped and not being a registered document
was not admissible in evidence – Trial Court allowed the application
– Writ petition filed against the order of trial Court dismissed by
High Court – On appeal, held: After the death of plaintiff’s father,
defendant and their mother as well as sisters became the legal heirs
under Hindu Succession Act inheriting the property being class I
heirs – The memorandum of settlement divided the entire property
between plaintiff and defendant which document was also claimed
to be signed by their mother as well as sisters – Since, there was
relinquishment of the rights of other heir of the properties, the
memorandum of settlement was compulsorily registrable u/s.17 of
the Registration Act – Document being not stamped could not have
been accepted in evidence – Trial Court was right in holding the
document as inadmissible – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
Or. XIII, r.3 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Registration Act, 1908 – s.17 – Unregistered document –
Partition Suit – Whether the document which is inadmissible in
evidence could be used for any collateral purpose – Held: In a suit
for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 503
503
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of
various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint
properties by metes and bounds – Further, an unstamped instrument
is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the
same is impounded – In instant case, document may be admissible
in evidence for collateral purpose provided the appellant gets the
document impounded and pay the stamp duty together with penalty.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The memorandum of settlement dated 09.09.94
was not mere memorandum of family settlement rather a family
settlement itself. Firstly, on 25.10.1992, the father of the parties
was himself owner of both, the residence and shop being his self-
acquired properties. The High Court has rightly held that the
said document cannot be said to be a Will, so that father could
have made Will in favour of his two sons,plaintiff and defendant.
Neither the plaintiff nor defendant had any share in the property
on the day when it is said to have been partitioned by their father.
After death of their father plaintiff, defendant and their mother as
well as sisters become the legal heirs under Hindu Succession
Act,1956 inheriting the property being a class I heir. The document
dated 09.09.1994 divided the entire property between plaintiff
and defendant which document is also claimed to be signed by
their mother as well as the sisters. In any view of the matter,
there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the
properties, hence, courts below are right in their conclusion that
there being relinquishment, the document dated 09.09.1994 was
compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
[Para 10] [508-D-G]
2. The document dated 09.09.1994 was compulsorily
registrable. The document also being not stamped could not have
been accepted in evidence and order of trial court in allowing the
application of the defendant holding the document as inadmissible
cannot be faulted. [Para 12] [510-D]
3. There is only one aspect of the matter which needs
consideration, i.e., whether the document dated 09.09.1994 which
was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any
collateral purpose. In a suit for partition, an unregistered
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy
of title, natExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.