Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 584 (MAD)

S. R. Mariappa Thevar v. Karuppiah Thevar

2002-07-09

P.D.DINAKARAN

body2002
Judgment :- By consent, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing. 2. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in the second appeal. 3. The appellant/ plaintiff laid O.S.No.382 of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Srivilliputhur, for a bare injunction alleging that the suit property is a joint family property. 4. However, the respondent/defendant resisted the suit on the basis of exhibits B1 and B2, viz. the sale deed dated 25.6.1991 and the unregistered partition deed dated 12.4.1991, entered between the appellant/plaintiff and his son Gurusamy, who sold the property to the respondent/defendant. 5. Both the Courts below, based on the evidence of DW1 - respondent/defendant and DWs 2 to 5, which speak about the partition said to have been entered between the appellant/plaintiff and his son Gurusamy on 12.4.1991 as well as the subsequent sale of the suit property by Gurusamy in favour of Karuppiah Thevar, viz. the respondent herein, under exhibit B1 dated 25.6.1991, found that the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and therefore, dismissed the suit for bare injunction. 6. The above second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether the Courts below misinterpreted the probative value of the unregistered partition deed marked as Ex.B2 in holding that it is admissible in evidence without registration? (ii) If the unregistered partition deed marked as Ex.B2 is inadmissible, whether letting in of oral evidence to prove the same is hit by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act? 7. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under. (ii) If the unregistered partition deed marked as Ex.B2 is inadmissible, whether letting in of oral evidence to prove the same is hit by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act? 7. In this regard, I am obliged to refer Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under. "Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.- When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms: Proviso (1).- Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document, or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law. Proviso (2).- The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree or formality of the document. Proviso (3).- The existence of nay separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved. Proviso (4).- The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents. Proviso (5).- Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved: Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract. Proviso (6).- Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts." 7. Proviso (6).- Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts." 7. There is no provision of law requiring that the partition by family settlement must be reduced into writing and registered, though when the partition by family settlement is reduced to writing, the question of registration may arise, and in which event, the oral evidence of such partition is admissible. In other words, while writing of the partition by family settlement marked as exhibit B2 cannot be used as a document of title by itself for want of registration, it could be used as a piece of evidence to corroborate other evidence or as an admission of transaction or showing or explaining the conduct between the parties with regard to such partition by family settlement. Therefore, to this extent, the Court has rightly held that the unregistered partition deed marked as exhibit B2 is admissible in evidence, even though the same is not registered and also rightly permitted the oral evidence to prove the same and such procedure is not hit by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 8. That apart, it is well settled in law that the person, who is not in possession of the suit property, is not entitled to seek a decree for bare injunction. 9. Hence, in the instant case, finding that the appellant/plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, both the Courts below rightly and concurrently rejected the suit. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, CMP No.10376 of 2000 is also dismissed.