Dismissed

Abhimanyu v. Kanhaiya and Another

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2020SA/284/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the challenge to a first appellate decree declaring title based on unregistered documents. The Court held that a document titled as a relinquishment deed, which merely acknowledged an earlier partition and alienation, constitutes a family arrangement exempt from registration.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; judgment and decree of the first appellate Court restored; parties to bear own costs.

Abhimanyu Vs Kanhaiya and Another — Partition | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Second Appeal No. 284 of 2007

¶5

Abhimanyu, Aged about 59 years, S/o Late Shri
Santnam Satnami, R/o Village Pauni, Tahsil
Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---Appellant/Defendant

¶7

 Versus

¶8

1.Kanhaiya, Aged about 61 years, S/o Late Shri
Santnam Satnami, R/o Village Pauni, Tahsil
Mungeli, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

--- Plaintiff

¶10

2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

 --- Respondents

¶12

For Appellant:-Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1:-Mr. Prakash Tiwari and
Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocates
For State:-Mr. Anshuman Rabra, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶14

15/01/2020

¶15

1.Thissecondappealpreferredbythe

¶16

appellant/defendant was admitted for hearing on
the following substantial question of law :-

¶17

“Whether the lower appellate Court was
justified in recording a finding that
the agreement Ex. P-1 and P-2 were
executed by the appellant/defendant No.
1 – Abhimanyu in the year-1992 & 1995
respectively and on that basis reversing
the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court ?”

¶18

¶19

(For the sake of convenience, parties would be
referred hereinafter as per their status and
ranking shown in the suit before the trial
Court.)

¶20

2. Plaintiff Kanhaiya and defendant Abhimanyu, both are brothers. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction upon the suit land shown in Schedule 'B' appended with the plaint stating inter alia that the said suit land is exclusively held by him as it was given to him in partition during the lifetime of their father Santram and defendant has also executed a consent letter dated 05/07/1995 (Ex. P/1) and an agreement dated 22/05/1992 (Ex. P/2) in his favour acknowledging plaintiff's title over the suit land, yet he claimed partition of the suit land before the revenue authorities which necessitated the filing of the suit by the plaintiff wherein defendant took the plea of denial and pleaded that Ex. P/1 and P/2 are inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, therefore, plaintiff's suit

¶21

deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

3.Learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree

¶23

dated 10/12/2004 dismissed the suit, but on

¶24

¶25

appeal being preferred by the plaintiff, learned
first appellate Court vide its judgment and
decree dated 04/01/2005 reversed the judgment and
decree of the trial Court and declared the title
of plaintiff over the suit land shown in Schedule
'B' of the plaint and with respect to the land
bearing Khasra No. 365 area 0.50 acre which fell
in the share of plaintiff's as well as
defendant's father Santram during partition, the
first appellate court granted ½ share i.e. 0.25
acre in favour of each one of them.

¶26

4.Mr. H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the
appellant/defendant would submit that the first
appellate Court committed legal error in relying
upon Ex. P/1 and P/2 allegedly executed by
defendant in favour of the plaintiff as both of
these are unregistered documents and therefore,

¶27

could not have been relied upon for granting
decree in favour of the plaintiff, as such, the
judgment and decree of the first appellate Court
deserves to be set aside and that of the trial
Court be restored.

¶28

5.Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant would support the impugned

¶29

¶30

judgment and decree passed by the first appellate
Court and submit that the second appeal deserves
to be dismissed.

¶31

6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein-
above and went through the records with utmost
circumspection.

¶32

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that his father
Santram, during his lifetime, made partition of
the suit land between the plaintiff and the
defendant and the suit land shown in Schedule 'B'
annexed with the plaint fell in his share to
which defendant has already agreed and executed
Ex. P/1 dated 05/07/1995 and Ex. P.2 dated
22/05/1992inhisfavouracknowledging
plaintiff's title over the suit land whereas both

¶33

of these documents have been contended to be
inadmissible in evidence for want of registration
which has been replied by learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff stating that earlier oral
partition held between the parties has been
reduced in writing which has already been
indicated by the defendant, therefore, both of
these documents need no registration.

¶34

¶35

8.Though Ex. P/1 has been titled as relinquishment
deed, but paragraph 4 of the said document states
as under :-

¶36

4 - ककफफयत - फफकररन . ३ममबतरईगईहमरररशरफमलरतभभफमहक फजसपरहमशरफमलकरसतकरततचलतआरहतथतफकनततमकआपसर बटवरररमततरफबकअपनतसमसतभभफमककबतचचतकरहतअबशतषभभफमजक ऊपरबतरईहकउसपरअकतलतकनहकयरवलदसनतररमकरसतनरमर सरफकनपरनरकतनरमपटवरररअफभलतखदतरसतकरफदयरजरवतमतररयर मतरतफदगरवररसरनककककईआपफतउजरदवरनहरहहकनरहरभफवषयमम ककईतकइसहरकछकरइकरररनरमरकतसरमनतफभठरवकनरजरयजमरनर जरवतअसततयहइकरररनरमरउपफसथतगवरहहकतसरमनतफलखरफदयरफक सनदरहतफ . तर . ०५ / ७ / ९५।

¶37

9.A careful perusal of the aforesaid document Ex.
P/1 would show that earlier partition that took
place between the plaintiff and the defendant has
been acknowledged by the defendant stating that
he has already alienated his share and the left
out land belongs to the plaintiff. It is a case
where defendant himself has only acknowledged the
title of the plaintiff vide Ex. P/1 and he has
not relinquished title already vested in him in
favour of the plaintiff, therefore, it would fall
withinthemeaningof'family
settlement/agreement' which, as already been
held, is reduced in writing for future purposes,
therefore, Ex. P/1 though wrongly titled as

¶38

¶39

relinquishment deed, would not take away the
original colour of the document as it is only and
only a family arrangement and it is well settled
law that family arrangement which has been
reduced to writing need not be registered. (See:
Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama1,Roshan Singh
and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors.2and Som Deva and
Ors. v. Rati Ram and Anr.3). Even otherwise,
though this plea of non-registration of Ex. P/1
and P/2 was taken by the defendant before the
trial Court, but it was not pressed, as such, no
finding has been recorded by the trial Court and
the first appellate Court in this regard.

¶40

10.In my considered opinion, Ex. P/1 is an out and

¶41

out family arrangement acknowledging the oral

¶42

partition already made by plaintiff's and
defendant's father during his lifetime,
therefore, the said document (Ex. P/1) is not
required to be registered and the first appellate
Court committed no illegality in relying upon Ex.
P/1 to hold that the suit land shown in Schedule

¶43

'B' annexed with the plaint is held by the
plaintiff which he acquired in partition earlier
made by his father which has been accepted and

¶44

1 (2018) 15 SCC 130

¶45

2 (2018) 14 SCC 814

¶46

3 (2006) 10 SCC 788

¶47

¶48

admitted by the defendant vide Ex. P/1. Thus, the
finding recorded by the first appellate Court
suffers from no illegality qua Ex. P/1. So far as
Ex. P/2 is concerned, it is not seriously
disputed by the parties as 25 decimal of land has
already been given by the plaintiff to the
defendant which has been fairly stated by learned
counsel for the plaintiff before this Court. It
is therefore placed on record.

¶49

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. The second appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).

¶50

12. Decree be drawn-up accordingly.

¶51

Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

¶52

Harneet

Abhimanyu v. Kanhaiya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu v. Kanhaiya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Budhram Vs Jagdev and Others

(a). Siyaram Vs a. Prem Singh (Dead ) Through Lrs.

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Narendra Kumar Soni and Ors. Vs Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors.

Smt. Durga Bai and Ors. Vs Murari Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs.

Mani Ram Yadav Vs Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain