SWAMINATHAN V. KOONAVALLI AIR 1982 MAD. 276

SWAMINATHAN V. KOONAVALLI AIR 1982 MAD. 276

FACTS

• The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in a property, claiming it was part of joint family property.
• They asserted that their father received his share of rent from the property until his death, based on a family arrangement dated 19-9-1953.
• Defendants contested, claiming the plaintiffs' father had no right to the property as it was divided by a registered instrument on 6-3-1953.
• The matter that was presented before the trial court was whether the family arrangement (Ex A. 1) was a valid and admissible piece of evidence. The trial court determined that Ex. A. 1 was inadmissible in evidence and subsequently dismissed the case. 
• On appeal, the lower appellate court upheld the trial court's decision stating that Ex. A. 1 created an interest in the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs' father who had no pre-existing right therein. As per the law, the family arrangement requires registration to be admissible.
• Hence, this second appeal.

ISSUE

• Whether the family arrangement (Ex A. 1) creating a claimed interest in the property required registration.

RULE

• While a family arrangement brought about by a document may require registration if it declares future rights and properties, if it merely records an earlier agreement, it may not require registration.

HELD

• The trial court and lower appellate court deemed Ex. A. 1 inadmissible due to lack of registration, as it was seen to create an interest in the property for the plaintiffs' father who had no pre-existing right.
• Ramcharan Das v. Girja Nandini Devi [AIR 1966 SC 323]: Held that family arrangements are not transfers or creations of interest in property under Sec. 37 (a) of the U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912. It's not necessary for every party benefiting from a family settlement to have a legal claim to the property, as long as they are related and have a possible claim or semblance of claim. Reaffirmed in T. Ramayamma v. T. Mathummal [AIR 1974 Mad 321]
• Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh [AIR 1966 SC 292]: If the document merely records an earlier agreement, it may not require registration as per Sec. 17 of the Registration Act
• The court noted, that the document did not affect a division but rather recorded an earlier division decided by Panchayatdars.
• The court found Ex. A. 1 admissible as evidence, stating it merely recorded an earlier transaction of partition suggested by the Panchayatdars.
• The matter was remitted to the lower appellate court for further consideration in light of this ruling.