Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 659 (TS)

Nagamani died v. Balamani

2022-10-19

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

body2022
ORDER : Being aggrieved by the order of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar in O.S.No.54 of 2010 dated 10.12.2021 whereunder the objection raised by the plaintiff in the said suit for marking the documents tendered by the defendants during the course of trial was sustained denying opportunity to the defendants therein for marking the documents sought to be exhibited, the defendants in the said suit preferred this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. As could be seen from the material documents filed before this Court, the petitioner herein are the defendants in O.S.No.54 of 2010 and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs therein. During the course of trial when the petitioners herein sought to produce an unregistered, but impounded document and mark the same on their behalf, the respondents/plaintiffs raised objection about the admissibility of the document. 3. Learned trial Court having heard both parties held that the objection raised by the respondents/plaintiff about the admissibility of the document dated 14.05.1978 is valid, thereby rejected to receive the document into evidence. 4. The petitioners/defendants not satisfied with the finding of the Court below presented the present revision on the ground that the Court below wrongly rejected their contention in spite of the fact that the Court below allowed their petition vide I.A.No.20 of 2017 through which the Court agreed to receive the document and that at the request of the petitioners herein, the same document was sent to the District Registrar and got the same impounded. The petitioners have further pleaded that the Relinquishment Deed/Family Settlement Deed dated 14.05.1978 was validated by the District Registrar by collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty vide Proceedings No.G/597/2018, Dated 19.07.2018. Since the document was already impounded and validated, the Court below ought to have admitted the document dated 14.05.1978 in evidence as provided under Section 41(2) of the Registration Act. The petitioners have claimed that the Court below failed to appreciate the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioners herein and also failed to appreciate the citations produced by them, thereby they prayed for setting aside the order and for a direction to the Court below to receive the documents and admit the same in the evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein wanted to mark the document in support of their claim. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein wanted to mark the document in support of their claim. As per the written statement in the above referred suit, the proposed document was already impounded after payment of stamp duty and penalty. Learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments : 1. AIR 2016 SCC 3236 between Subraya M.N. vs. Vittala M.N. 2. 2016 (4) ALD 775 (DB) between M. Vidyasagar Reddy and others vs. M. Padmamma and others. 3. (2019) 6 SCC 409 between Thulasidhara and others vs. Narayanappa and others. The learned counsel has argued that in view of the above judgments, the document need not be registered and it can be received in evidence. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs opposed the said arguments and contended that the Court below rightly rejected the request of the petitioners by holding the objection raised by them before the Court as valid. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the revision. 7. I have heard both parties. 8. Now the point for consideration is : Whether the proposed document is admissible in evidence ? if so, Whether the order of the Court below rejecting the request of the petitioners’ herein is liable to be set aside ? 9. POINT: Counsel for the petitioners herein relied on the judgment between Korukonda Chalapathi Rao vs. Korukonda Anapurna Sampath reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 847 and submitted that in the above referred judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that “when there has been partition, then, there may be no scope for invoking the concept of antecedent right as such, which is inapposite after a disruption in the joint family status and what is more an outright partition by metes and bounds. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the appellants and the respondents, admittedly, partitioned their joint family properties. This is clear from the Khararunama wherein it is stated that they have divided the joint family properties”. With the said finding the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the marking of such kararunama. 10. In this regard, it is to be noticed that the appellants and the respondents, admittedly, partitioned their joint family properties. This is clear from the Khararunama wherein it is stated that they have divided the joint family properties”. With the said finding the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the marking of such kararunama. 10. Counsel relied on another judgment in Subraya M.N. vs. Vittala M.N. reported in AIR 2016 SCC 3236 for the proposition that the said resolution which was reduced in writing explaining settlement arrived at between parties and conduct of parties in receiving of money from defendant in lieu of relinquishing their interest in property could be taken as family arrangements and though the document is not registered can be used as corroborative piece of evidence. 11. Having relied on another judgment between M. Vidyasagar Reddy and others vs. M. Padmamma and others reported in 2016 (4) ALD 775 (DB), learned counsel has submitted that “memorandum of a family arrangement or an instrument containing the list of properties to be enjoyed peacefully by each of the sharers is not liable to be construed as an instrument of partition itself and it does not require compulsory registration.” 12. Counsel has relied on another judgment between Thulasidhara and another vs. Narayanappa and others reported in (2019) 6 SCC 409 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that “even an unregistered document of family settlement would not operate as a complete estoppel against the original plaintiff who was party to such family settlement it can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made there under and conduct of the parties. As such an unregistered document containing the signatures of all members can be used as corroborative evidence. 13. In another judgment between Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 706 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the memorandum of family settlement does not require compulsory registration. The document which is created for the first time in immovable property only requires registration. 14. 13. In another judgment between Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others vs. Manjit Kaur and others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 706 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to observe that the memorandum of family settlement does not require compulsory registration. The document which is created for the first time in immovable property only requires registration. 14. In the case on hand, it appears that the petitioners/defendants wanted to exhibit the document said to have been executed on 14.05.1978, where under the elder sisters executed the document relinquishing their respective shares over the ancestral properties in favour of their younger sister ensuring her that they would execute the registered document if required soon after her marriage. The recitals of the documents would show that it is a family arrangement by which both elder sisters wanted to relinquish their right over the joint family property in favour of their younger sister and the document was executed way back in 1978. In the document sought to be marked is evidence is an understanding between the family members, the elder sisters executed the said document assuring their younger sister at the time of her marriage that they are relinquishing their ownership on certain properties and they will execute a registered document if such document is required. It is a memorandum of understanding. In the light of the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioners herein, it is very clear and a settled proposition of law that a memorandum of document family arrangement it does not require any registration and it can be received into evidence. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to produce the document and get it marked as exhibit on their behalf. 15. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. Trial Court is directed to receive the documents into evidence. 16. As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed.