LexSUBRAYA M.N. versus VITTALA M.N. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
924 A B c D E F G H [2016] 5 S.C.R. 924 SUBRAYA M.N. v. VITTALA M.N. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 5805 of2016) JULY05,2016 [KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] Partition - Suit by plaintiffs (brothers of the defendant) - For partition of suit schedule property at Item Nos. 1,2 and 3 which was ioint family property - Alleging that the defendant was attempting to grab the suit properties - In the Written Statement defendant stated that Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 had sold their shares to the defendant and the plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 had also relinquished their rights in the Item Nos. 1 and 2 and the same was recorded in Panchayat Resolution (Exb. D22); that Item No. 3 was his self-acquired property and thus plaintiffs were not entitled to partition - During trial, plaintiff Nos. I and 2 stated in the court that they had no claim over item Nos. 1 and 2 - Trial court decreed the suit holding that plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were entitled to J/3rd share each in item Nos. 1, 2 - They cannot be said to have relinquished their rights by Exbt-22 or the receipts Exbts. Dl4 and D23, as there can be no relinquishment without registered document - High Court affirmed the decree - On appeal, held: Courts below have erred in ignoring the oral and documentary evidence regarding Item Nos. 1 and 2 of suit scheduled property - There was a division in status of the defendant and plaintiffs so far as item Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned and the same was affirmed by the Panchayat by its resolution Exbt. D-22 - The Panchuyat resolution ( a written document) though not registered, can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence explaining the family settlement and the conduct of the parties in receiving the money in lieu of relinquishing their interest in item Nos. 1 and 2 - So far as ite.m No. 3 of the suit schedule property is concerned, the defendant failed to prove that the property was his self-acquired property and not the joint family property - Thus, plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were entitled to share in Item No. 3 - It is evident from the evidence that plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have relinquished their rights only in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 and not in respect of item No. 3 924 SUBRAYA M.N. v. VITTALA M.N. & ORS. - Therefore, they are also entitled to their share in item No. 3 - thus, all the plaintiffs are entitled to J/5th share each in item No. 3. Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Held: Jurisdiction u/Art. 136 is to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice - But the court would interfere where the courts below have unappreciated the evidence and ignored the weight of evidence and the findings suffer from perversity. Registration Act, 1908 - ss. 17 and 49 - Unregistered document -As regards family arrangements in respect of immovable properties - Evidentiary value of - Held: Binding family arrangements in respect of immoiable property worth more than Rupees hundred, can be made orally and when so made, no question of registration arises - But if such arrangement is reduced to writing, it requires registration and without registration it is inadmissible in evidence - However, it can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 91. Partly allowing the appeal, the court HELD: 1.1 Power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of justice. But where both the courts have mis-appreciated the evidence and ignored the weight of evidence on record and findings suffer from perversity, this Court would certainly examine whether the findings are consistent with facts and evidence on record and interfere with the conclusion. In the present case, courts below erred in ignoring the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendant regarding item Nos.1 and 2 and the findings of the courts regarding item Nos.1 and 2 are palpably erroneous 'and the same is to be reversed. [Para 21] [935-G-H; 936-B] 1.2 Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the documents which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, are to be registered. Under Section 49 of the Registration Act, no document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act to be registered shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting an immovable property. As prov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.