The plaintiffs, four brothers, and the defendants are descendants of Chhatar Singh, who had two sons: Jai Ram and Ram Lal.
Soonda, the father of the plaintiffs, and Puran Singh, a descendant of Jai Ram, inherited joint ancestral properties in the village.
In 1955, there was a partition of agricultural lands between Soonda and Puran Singh, which was properly recorded.
However, there remained a dispute over the partition of residential properties, including houses and ghers/ghetwars.
The document in question, Exh. P-12, dated 3rd August 1955, recorded a decision between Soonda and Puran Singh regarding the division of remaining properties.
Exh. P-12 listed the properties allotted to each party, with Soonda receiving a smaller house and certain ghers, and Puran Singh receiving other properties.
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the properties delineated in their favor in Exh. P-12, including a disputed plot known as B2.
ISSUE
Whether Exh. P-12 was an instrument of partition requiring registration or merely a memorandum of family arrangement, and its admissibility in court.
RULE
An instrument of partition requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act if it operates to sever ownership or effect a change in legal relation to the property.
A writing that merely recites a past partition does not require registration. It's the document's essence that determines its registration requirement.
The document must embody the expression of will necessary to effect the change in legal relation to the property to be considered an instrument of partition.
A document can be admitted in evidence under the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act for collateral purposes, such as proving the nature of possession of the parties.
OBSERVATION
The document in question, Exh. P-12, recorded a decision between the parties regarding the manner of partition but did not effect the partition itself.
Exh. P-12 merely recited past events and listed properties allotted to respective parties, signifying a family arrangement rather than an instrument of partition.
The document was construed as a memorandum of family arrangement, admissible for collateral purposes, and not requiring registration as an instrument of partition.
Narayan Sakharam Patil v. Co-operative Central Bank, Malkapur [AIR 1938 Nag 434]: This case emphasized distinguishing between instruments of partition and mere lists of properties allotted, affirming that documents recording past partition events without effecting a division do not require registration.
Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain [(1911) 38 Ind App 87]: In this case, the Privy Council upheld a family arrangement, recognizing its purpose to settle disputes and acknowledge pre-existing rights without creating new titles. It emphasized that family arrangements aim to maintain peace among family members while acknowledging existing titles.
The court held that Exh. P-12 was a memorandum of family arrangement, not an instrument of partition, and thus did not require registration. It could be admitted as evidence for collateral purposes. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the properties delineated in their favor in the memorandum.