Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded MANU/SC/0284/2018 - (23 Mar 2018) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">In present suit, Plaintiff has filed the document dated 9th September, 1994 evidencing family settlement which was claimed by the Plaintiff as memorandum of settlement. An application under Order XIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and Article 45 and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and Sections 17 and 49 of the Indian Registration Act, was filed by the Defendant claiming that document dated 9th September, 1994 being not a registered document and being not properly stamped is not admissible in evidence, same may be rejected. The application was replied by the Plaintiff. The trial Court vide its order allowed the application of the Defendant holding that, the document is a family settlement deed and a relinquishment document which is not admissible as evidence being inadequately stamped and not being registered. Against the said order writ petition was filed by the Plaintiff which was dismissed by the High Court upholding the order of the trial Court. The High Court also took the view that, so called family settlement takes away the share of the sisters and mother, therefore, the same was compulsorily registrable. Aggrieved by the said order, the Plaintiff has filed present appeal. 
The Plaintiff claimed the document dated 9th September, 1994 as memorandum of family settlement. Plaintiff's case is that earlier partition took place in the life time of the father of the parties on 25th October, 1992 which was recorded as memorandum of family settlement on 9th September, 1994. There are reasons due to which Court is of view that, the document dated 9th September, 1994 was not mere memorandum of family settlement rather a family settlement itself. Firstly, on 25th October, 1992, the father of the parties was himself owner of both, the residence and shop being self-acquired properties of Devi Dutt Verma. 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 Devi Dutt Verma. Devi Dutt Verma died on 10th September, 1993. After his death Plaintiff, Defendant and their mother as well as sisters become the legal heirs under Hindu Succession Act, 1955 inheriting the property being a class I heir. The document dated 9th September, 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. 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 9th September, 1994 was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 
The document was compulsorily registrable. The document also being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence and order of trial Court allowing the application under Order XII Rule 3 of CPC and the reasons given by the trial court in allowing the application of the Defendant holding the document as inadmissible cannot be faulted. 
In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for 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. A two-Judge Bench judgment of present Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Anr. v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Ors., is appropriate. In that case also this Court held that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents. 
Document dated 9th September, 1994 may be admissible in evidence for collateral purpose provided the Appellant get the document impounded and to pay the stamp duty together with penalty as has been directed. Appeal is partly allowed. The order of the trial Court as well as the High Court holding that, the document required compulsory registration is upheld. Appeal is partly allowed holding that deed dated 9th September, 1994 is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose subject to payment of stamp duty and penalty.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Relevant : Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Anr. v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Ors. <manuid>MANU/SC/1141/2015</manuid> : (2015) 16 SCC 787</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Partition, Document, Admissibility</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>