AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramaswami, J.—Certain lands belonging to one Varadarajulu Naidu were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
On the claimant not accepting the award and requesting reference to Court under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Special Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition (R.C.). Nandanam, made five reference under S. 18 of the Act to the learned Subordinate Judge, Chenglepet, in respect of the
lands acquired and they were numbered as C.R.O.P. Nos. 8, 91, 348, and 356 of 1966 and 355 of 1968. The learned Subordinate Judge
enhanced the compensation, the details of which are not necessary to be noted. The appeals preferred by the Government against the enhancement
to this Court were also dismissed. Before the appeals were dismissed, Varadarajulu Naidu himself withdrew one half of the enhanced
compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge. Before he could withdraw the remaining half of the enhanced compensation amount, the
said Varadarajulu Naidu died on 7.8.1979, leaving his widow, three sons and four daughters. Thereafter, the three sons filed five applications in
the five reference petitions, stated above, for recognising them as the legal representatives of the deceased Varadarajulu Naidu. In those
applications, the four daughters of the deceased along with the land Acquisition Officer were impleaded as respondents. In support of the claim
that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Varadarajulu Naidu in respect of the compensation, they claimed that there was a partition,
in which certain properties were allotted to their deceased father with a condition that whatever that was left by him at the time of his death, was to
have devolved on the three sons. Ex. A1 was produced by them, as evidencing the partition and the term therein relating to the right to succeed to
the compensation as a property left by their father. The four daughters filed their counter affidavits claiming that there was no partition between
Varadarajulu Naidu and his sons, that Varadarajulu Naidu died intestate, that they along with their mother and the sons, are also entitled to a share
in the compensation and that therefore, they should also be impleaded as the legal representatives. They had claimed that each one of the daughters
is entitled to 1/8 share in the compensation. The learned Subordinate Judge, by a common order dated 19-8-1982, held that the sons alone are
entitled to be brought in as the legal representatives and they alone are entitled to the compensation. It is against the order, these five revision
petitions have been filed by three out of the four daughters. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that Ex. A1, which
has been marked in this case, is a regular partition deed and since that has not been registered, no reliance can be placed by the respondents to
establish title or right to the compensation, nor can they refer to the terms in the document. Ex. A1 is an unregistered document. Though it was not
originally stamped, when it was produce before the court below as evidence, it was impounded and sent to the Collector for deciding the stamp
duty payable on the document and the Collector determined the stamp duty and penalty payable under that document as Rs. 15,550/- and
collected the said amount and issued the necessary certificate. Thereafter the document was marked as evidence in the case. Even so, according to
the learned counsel for the petitioners that since it is not registered, the document cannot be relied on to establish any title to the property. It is
contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not really a partition deed, but it is a document in the nature of koor chit or a family
arrangement evidencing the partition between Varadarajulu Naidu and his sons, and as such, it could be relied on as evidencing division in status,
the factum of partition and the nature and character of possession of the property. It is well settled that even as a deed of partition, a document,
which is not registered, could be received in evidence, but it is admissible only for collateral purposes. A Division Bench of this Court in
Kumarasami Gounder v. Aravagiri Gounder, 87 L.W. 215 = 1974 1 M.L.J 413. after referring to the earlier judgments on the subject, held that an
unregistered partition deed, though could not be admitted in evidence to prove the terms of the partition, could certainly be admitted in evidence
for proving the division in status and the factum of partition. It was held that taking possession of the shares allotted to each one of the parties at the
partition, would be a purpose collateral to the purpose of partition and that the unregistered deed of partition could be used for proving the nature
and character of possession of the respective items of properties entered among the members of coparcenary. In that case, document was relied
on among others, for the purpose of proving that the defendant was in possession of the property in has own right and absolutely and in order to
prove that character of possession, the document was held to be admissible in evidence. Even on the assumption, therefore, that the document Ex.
A1 is an unregistered partition deed, the respondents could rely on the document in support of their possession of the C, D and E schedule
properties, as absolute owners. If that be so, as part of the same question, they could also rely on the allotment of the A Schedule properties to
their father. The only question, therefore, is whether the condition in the allotment to the father that whatever property that was left by him at the
time of his death, should be inherited by the three sons absolutely could be relied on by the respondents. In my opinion, if the recitals relating to the
allotment of C, D and E schedule properties could be looked into in order to show that the said properties were allotted to the three sons,
respectively and to be enjoyed by them absolutely, we can as well rely on the recitals relating to the A schedule property, subject to the condition
that whatever he leaves at the time of him of his death, is inheritable only by the three sons. Though it may not be termed strictly as conferment of a
life estate on the father, it is a term of allotment among the members themselves, or, the character of possession by the father was such that he
could enjoy during his life time and if it was not disposed of by him during his life time, it should devolve on his death on the three sons absolutely.
For that purpose, those recitals could be relied on. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether Ex. A1 is really a koor chit
or a regular partition deed. As I said, even on the basis that it is an unregistered partition deed; it could be relied on for the purpose of proving the
nature of possession of the father, whether he was holding it absolutely or with any restricted right over the properties given to him. There was a
partition could not be disputed and on fact the father also claimed the compensation on the basis of partition and allotment of the properties
acquired to him. We may also mention that in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners in the applications filed by the respondents herein for
impleading themselves, they have not stated as to how they restricted their right to inherit the properties allotted under the A schedule in Ex. A1
alone, because what was claimed in the counter is only 1/8 share for each of the daughters. If it is 1/8 share as claimed by them, it could be only on
the basis that there was a regular partition in which the A schedule properties were allotted to the father. If as is the contention of the revision
petitioners, there was no partition at all, the share of each daughter will not be 1/8 share, but it will be entirely different and we could not assume
that they have mistakenly claimed 1/8, while they were entitled for a larger share. If there was no partition, since the properties in hands of
Varadarajulu Naidu were the joint family properties, the sons, would have been entitled to 1/4 share each and the father would have been entitled
to 1/4 share in the estate and the compensation amount takes the place of the joint family estate and therefore even in the compensation each of the
sons would be entitled to 1/4 share in their own right as co-parceners and the father would have been entitled to only an 1/4 share, in which alone
the petitioners herein can claim 1/8 share each. Therefore, the petitioners were willing to proceed on the basis that the A schedule properties were
allotted to the father, but they wanted to claim that the term relating to possession, that after him, the sons should succeed, should not be given
effect to, cannot be accepted. It may be mentioned that one of the contentions raised by the petitioners before the Court below was that Ex. A1
could not have been executed on 15-1-1959 but it was an ante-dated document. This was on the basis that in the document, it is mentioned that
only one son and one daughter are yet to be married, whereas it is seen from the evidence that on the date of Ex. A1, there were two sons and one
daughter to be married and therefore, the document should have been come into existence at a later date. There are two ways of explaining this.
One is, the date of 15.1.1959 referred to in the document is the date, on which, the panchayatdars divided the properties and the document might
have been reduced into writing at a later date because I do not find at the end of the document, when the parties have signed the document; they
have not given any date. In the preamble portion also, it is only stated that the partition was effected in the presence of panahcayatdhars. The
document also states. The Tamil Lexicon gives the meaning of as ''release deed''. This expression shows that the document was executed
subsequent to the actual partition, but evidencing the terms of the partition effected earlier. The other explanation given by the respondents was that
the marriage of one of the sons was settled even two two months before the date Ex-A1 and that therefore, it was not considered to mention that
he is not a married man. It is in those circumstances, according to them only one son and one daughter was referred to as unmarried. In any case,
these are all unnecessary matters because the document is relied on only for certain collateral purposes of proving the character of possession of
the father of the properties acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and since the signatures of the sons and the panchayatdhars are not disputed
and in fact the document has been admitted in evidence, no importance can be attached to the date of the document itself. Therefore, the order of
the court below is right in that in respect of the properties allotted to the father and left by him at the time of his death, the sons alone are entitled to
succeed.
In the result, the revision petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.