Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible; Oral Partition Not Proved: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal

"When Document Effects Present Partition, It Must Be Registered": Karnataka High Court - Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that a document purporting to effect a partition in presenti requires mandatory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and mere nomenclature as Paalu Patti or Memorandum of Partition will not save it from inadmissibility if it creates or extinguishes rights.

Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur dismissed the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs, holding that both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were correct in concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the factum of partition, peaceful possession, or any right over the disputed properties.

The Court stressed, “The plaintiffs having failed to establish Ex.P1 to be a Paalu Patti in pursuance to an oral partition deed, cannot now try to rely on the document produced by defendant No.1 at Ex.D2 to substantiate their case, as it was not the case of the plaintiffs initially or even later questioning the release deed.”

Case Background — Plaintiffs' Claim of Oral Partition Rejected by Two Courts

The appellants (plaintiffs) claimed that they were in possession of four properties allotted to them under a family oral partition allegedly reduced into writing through Ex.P1, a document described as a Paalu Patti (memorandum of past partition) dated 26.07.1980. They further alleged that defendant no.1 was interfering with their possession, compelling them to seek partition and injunction.

Defendant no.1 (respondent) denied any such partition and relied upon a registered release deed dated 19.03.1956 (Ex.D2), executed by the plaintiffs’ father, relinquishing all his rights in favour of defendant no.1's branch. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest over the suit schedule properties due to this valid and unchallenged release.

High Court: “Ex.P1 is Not a Mere Memorandum — It is a Partition Deed Requiring Registration”

The Court, after re-examining the evidence, agreed with the lower courts that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Ex.P1 was a mere record of an oral partition. Justice Yerur observed, “Ex.P1 is a partition deed in presenti. Therefore, when the partition deed talks about the present and executed in the present by providing certain rights, the same requires to be registered under Section 17 of the Act and the said document having not been registered, it is not admissible in evidence.”

Rejecting the plaintiffs’ argument that Ex.P1 was a memorandum reiterating an earlier oral partition, the Court held that neither oral evidence nor independent proof of an earlier partition existed on record.

“Plaintiffs Cannot Circumvent Their Father's Registered Release Deed”: Supreme Principle Reiterated

The plaintiffs, while not disputing the existence of the 1956 registered release deed, tried to avoid its legal consequences. The Court held that the plaintiffs had themselves suppressed Ex.D2 in the plaint and only responded after the defendant’s written statement brought it up.

The Bench categorically held, “It is also seen that this registered document of release deed is not questioned or challenged by the plaintiffs till date.”

The Court further noted that the release deed stood unassailed for over 40 years, and there was no explanation for the plaintiffs’ silence or delay in asserting their alleged rights.

“Concurrent Findings on Fact and Law Do Not Warrant Interference in Second Appeal” — Justice Yerur

The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Section 100 CPC, stating: “This Court sitting in the second appeal is required to consider the substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, which is limited in scope... even if this Court finds a third opinion on the opinions already expressed concurrently by both Courts, it is a general rule that this Court should refrain from imposing its third opinion.”

It was also noted that the plaintiffs' prayer for partition contradicted their own case of earlier partition. Justice Yerur remarked, “If that is the case of the plaintiffs that they had partitioned the properties and were in their respective peaceful possession and enjoyment, then there was no need for the plaintiffs to seek for relief of permanent injunction.”

Final Judgment — Appeal Dismissed, Lower Courts' Decisions Affirmed

Concluding the judgment, the Court held: “The appeal preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court confirming the judgment of the Trial Court is hereby affirmed.”

The suit of the plaintiffs stands finally dismissed, and the findings regarding the binding effect of the registered release deed remain undisturbed.

Date of Decision: 26th March 2025