Bhagwan Das and Others Vs. Girja Shanker and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 3825 of 1990
Petitioner: Bhagwan Das and Others
Respondent: Girja Shanker and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 3825 of 1990
Judges: V.N. KHARE & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 20, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAWS
Civil suit for possession of property – Appellants claiming exclusive possession on the basis of unregistered partition deed – Defendants claiming joint possession with plaintiffs – High Court holding unregistered partition deed to be inadmissible in evidence and holding in favour of defendants-respondents. Held, since the document relied on by the appellants was unregistered, it was inadmissible in evidence as rightly held by the High Court. Appeal dismissed. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellants herein filed a suit claiming exclusive posses-sion of the property in dispute. The case of defendants-respond-ents was that the plaintiffs and defendants both are jointly entitled to possession of said property. The suit was decreed. The defendants-respondents filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. However, in the second appeal the High Court set aside the judgment of the first Ap-pellate Court on the ground that Exhibit P.2 being a partition deed was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. It is against the said judgment, the appellants-plaintiffs are in appeal before us.
2. We have looked into Exhibit P.2 and on its perusal it appears that on 26.7.1958 initially there was an agreement of partition between the plaintiffs and defendants and thereafter, the same was reduced in writing before the Panchas on the same date, i.e. on 26.7.1958. Exhibit P.2. in fact, is a partition deed and under the law it required registration. Since the document Exhibit P.2 was not registered, it was not admissible in evidence. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. The appellants herein filed a suit claiming exclusive posses-sion of the property in dispute. The case of defendants-respond-ents was that the plaintiffs and defendants both are jointly entitled to possession of said property. The suit was decreed. The defendants-respondents filed an appeal but the same was dismissed by the first Appellate Court. However, in the second appeal the High Court set aside the judgment of the first Ap-pellate Court on the ground that Exhibit P.2 being a partition deed was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. It is against the said judgment, the appellants-plaintiffs are in appeal before us.
2. We have looked into Exhibit P.2 and on its perusal it appears that on 26.7.1958 initially there was an agreement of partition between the plaintiffs and defendants and thereafter, the same was reduced in writing before the Panchas on the same date, i.e. on 26.7.1958. Exhibit P.2. in fact, is a partition deed and under the law it required registration. Since the document Exhibit P.2 was not registered, it was not admissible in evidence. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
