Supreme Court on Family Partition: Unregistered Palupatti Admissible for Collateral Purpose; Registered Release Deeds Held Valid and Binding.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court of Karnataka and the trial court in a partition suit. The Court held that the registered release deeds executed by two coparceners were valid and binding, and that the palupatti (family arrangement) though unregistered was admissible for collateral purposes to establish severance of joint family status and separate enjoyment of property. Accordingly the partitionable estate, shares and hotchpot were to be re-worked out in accordance with those findings.

Background:

• The suit related to properties (Schedule “A”, “B” & “C”) traced to a common ancestor Pillappa. The plaintiffs sought partition and separate possession of the properties, asserting they were joint family properties. (pp.2-3)

• Defendant No. 5 (now appellant) contested: (i) two of the plaintiffs had executed registered release deeds (Ex.D-15 on 9 Nov 1956 and Ex.D-16 on 14 Sept 1967) relinquishing their coparcenary rights, (ii) an alleged family settlement/palupatti dated 11 Feb 1972 (Ex.D-17) was invoked for severance of joint family.

• The trial court declared the estate partitionable, rejected the release deeds and palupatti, and gave shares accordingly.

• The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court held that Ex.D-15 (registered release of plaintiff no. 2) was valid and binding; the presumption under Section 90 Indian Evidence Act (old) applied since the document was registered, and no credible rebuttal was led.

• The objection that the release had not been “acted upon” or appeared in later palupatti was held to be misconceived; execution of registered deed with consideration and admissions was sufficient to effect relinquishment.

• Regarding Ex.D-16 (release by defendant no. 3), the Court found it also valid and binding, despite the High Court’s concern over stamp duty and non-acting upon; the consistent post-transaction conduct corroborated severance.

• The Court further held that an unregistered palupatti (Ex.D-17) could be looked at for collateral purposes (i.e., proof of severance of status and character of possession/enjoyment) even though it was not registered, so long as used for such purpose.

• On the basis of the above, the Court re-worked the partitionable pool: Schedule “A” and items 1–16 of Schedule “C” formed the hotchpot; Schedule “B” and item 17 of Schedule “C” were excluded from the family pool and held half by defendant no. 5 and half by defendant no. 6. (pp.27-28)

• Shares among parties were accordingly adjusted: plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 each were entitled to 8/21 of the partitionable pool; each of the five daughters’ branches to 1/21; plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 took no share due to valid releases.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 90, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – presumption as to genuineness of registered documents.

• Section 17, Registration Act, 1908 – registration of non-testamentary instruments in respect of immovable property.

• Principles of Hindu law on joint family property, severance of status, family settlement, and collateral use of unregistered documents.

Outcome:

The appeal is allowed; the judgments of the lower courts are set aside; a fresh preliminary decree is substituted incorporating the above findings and directing accordingly for further proceedings. (p.28-29)

Citation: 2025 INSC 1286

Case: P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath

Date of Decision: 6 November 2025

Civil Appeal No.: 3934 of 2006