Case Name – P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRs v. A.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS.
Case Number – CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3934 OF 2006
Date – Thursday, Sixth day of November, Two Thousand and Twenty – Five
Quorum – Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice N.V. Anjaria
FACTS
The case concerns a dispute within a Hindu Joint family over ancestral and self – acquired properties. The family descended from one Pillappa, who had four sons namely, A.P. Nanjundappa (plaintiff no. 1), Venkataswamappa (plaintiff no. 2), Sreeramappa (defendant no. 3), and P. Anjanappa (defendant no. 5) and five daughters. After Phillappa’s death in 1969, his two sons and three daughters filed a suit in 1987 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, seeking partition and separate possession of joint family properties, along with mesne profits.
Defendant no. 5 (P. Anjanappa) contested the suit, asserting that two of his brothers in this case namely plaintiff no. 2 Venkataswamappa and defendant no. 3 Sreeramappa had executed registered release deeds in 1956 and 1967 respectively, relinquishing their rights in the joint family property. There was a family settlement (palupatti) dated 11 February, 1972, under which plaintiff no. 1 Nanjundappa, had divided the remaining joint properties and has since been in separate possession and enjoyment.
The Trial Court in 1994 decreed partition, rejecting the defendant’s claim on the grounds that the palupatti was not registered and the alleged release of deeds were not shown to have been acted upon. The Karnataka High Court in 2005 upheld the Trial Court’s findings and affirmed the decree. The legal representatives of defendant no. 5 (Anjanappa) approached the Supreme Court challenging the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
ISSUES
- Whether the registered release deeds 09.11.1956 (Ex. D – 15) and 14.09.1967 (Ex.D – 16) were valid and binding, and what effect they had on the membership and share entitlements of plaintiff no.2 Venkataswamappa, and defendant no.3 Sreeramappa.
- Whether the palupatti dated 11. 02. 1972 (Ex. D – 17) could be relied upon for collateral purposes to establish severance of joint status and the nature of subsequent possession and enjoyment.
- Based on the findings on the above issues, what constitutes the partitionable estate, and how should the shares be computed among the parties.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 89 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Presumption as to the authenticity and execution of documents thirty years old.
- Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 – Lists of documents that are compulsorily registrable to be legally valid. These typically include instruments that create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish rights, titles, or interests in immovable property.
- Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property before the amendment of 2005.
ARGUMENTS
Appellant – The appellant’s, representing defendant no. 5, argued that the release deeds of 1956 and 1967 were duly registered, executed voluntarily, supported by consideration and legally effectively excluded plaintiff no.2, Venkataswamappa and defendant no. 3, Sreeramappa from the coparcenary. They contended that both the documents were acted upon and corroborative by the conduct of parties over decades. They further raised their arguments that the palupatti of 1972, though unregistered, was a genuine family arrangement reflecting a real and acted – upon severance of joint status between plaintiff no. 1, A.P. Nanjundappa and defendant no. 5, P. Anjanappa. Revenue records, separate possession and independent dealings with the lands corroborated its authenticity. Thus the concurrent findings of the courts below were contrary to the evidence on record and the settled principles of Hindu Law.
Respondent – The respondents argued that the alleged release deeds were not shown to have been acted upon and could not exclude plaintiff no. 2 Venkataswamappa and defendant no. 3, Sreeramappa from their lawful shares. They asserted that the palupatti was inadmissible as it was and could not establish either partition or severance of status. The plaintiffs maintained the properties remained joint family property and they were entitled to partition and separate possession as decreed by the lower Courts.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the release deeds and found that both were registered. The Court held that under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, 1872 such old registered documents carry a presumption of due execution, and in the absence of credible rebuttal they must be given full legal effect.
The Court therefore ruled that Ex. D – 15 (1956) validly severed plaintiff no. 2 Venkataswamappa from the coparcenary and Ex. D – 16 (1967) excluded defendant no. 3 both operating to extinguish the rights in the joint family estate.
Regarding the palupatti of 1972, the Court clarified that though unregistered, such a document can be relied upon for collateral purposes, namely, to prove severance of joint status and the nature of possession. Relying on earlier judgments Kale v. Director of Consolidation [(1976) 3 SCC 119 : AIR 1976 SC 807] and Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa [(2019) 6 SCC 409.], the Court examined that family arrangements and stated that even unregistered are valid if acted upon and evidenced by the conduct of the parties. The Court noted that the parties actions post 1972 where they lived separately, cultivated distinct lands, and carried out independent transactions, proved the dissolution of the joint family.
The Court ruled that both the lower Courts incorrectly dismissed the documents on technical grounds thereby failing to appreciate the evidence of separation.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment delivered by the High Court of Karnataka and Trial Court. The Court upheld the validity of the release deeds ( Ex.D – 15 and Ex. D – 16), holding them binding on the plaintiff no. 2 Venkataswamappa and defendant no. 3, Sreeramappa , thereby excluding them from any share. It also held that the palupatti dated 11.02.1972 (Ex.D – 17) was admissible for collateral purposes, proving severance of joint status.
The partitionable properties were confined to Schedule A and items 1–16 of Schedule C, while Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C were to be equally shared between defendant no. 5 P. Anjanappa and defendant no. 6. Muniswamappa, Plaintiff no. 1 A. P. Nanjundappa and defendant no. 5 P. Anjanappa were each granted 8/21, and each daughter’s branch received 1/21.
CONCLUSION
The recent judgment has clarified that while a registered release deed is conclusive, long – standing conduct can still prove separation, even with unregistered family arrangements. The Court upheld that familial separations and reaffirmed that severance of joint status can occur through clear intention and conduct, even without a registered instrument.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY- SUSMITA ROYCHOWDHURY
Click here to read more: P. ANJANAPPA (D) BY LRs v. A.P. NANJUNDAPPA & ORS
