SIDROMANI & ORS. versus HEM KUMAR & ORS.

SIDROMANI & ORS. versus HEM KUMAR & ORS.

Ex.D-4, the partition deed, is inadmissible as evidence of title or partition due to non-registration, but may prove severance of status. No custom of Jethansi was established and pleads of acquiescence were not raised or proven. Appellants are entitled to an equal share in joint family property, and oral evidence cannot establish partition subsequent to the deed due to s.91 Evidence Act.

Parties
Appellant: Shiromani; Appellant: Mst. Subhagwati; Respondent: Hem Kumar; Respondent: Dinmani; Respondent: Etwar Singh; Respondent: Indra Bhusan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 April 1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (second Appeal) by Special Leave
Outcome
Appeal allowed; preliminary decree for partition granted.
Legal Topics
Partition, Coparcenary, Registration of Deeds, Customary Law, Admissibility of Evidence
Property Law Family Law Hindu Law Partition Coparcenary Registration of Deeds Customary Law Admissibility of Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shiromani

Appellant

Mst. Subhagwati

Appellant

Hem Kumar

Respondent

Dinmani

Respondent

Etwar Singh

Respondent

Indra Bhusan Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (second Appeal) by Special Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether partition deed Ex.D-4 executed in 1943 is admissible in evidence without registration under s.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act
  2. 2 Whether appellant No.2 (Mst. Subhagwati) is precluded from claiming her share due to acquiescence
  3. 3 Whether a higher share for respondent No.1 was justified by custom of Jethansi in the Agharia caste

Ratio Decidendi

Ex.D-4, the partition deed, is inadmissible as evidence of title or partition due to non-registration, but may prove severance of status. No custom of Jethansi was established and pleads of acquiescence were not raised or proven. Appellants are entitled to an equal share in joint family property, and oral evidence cannot establish partition subsequent to the deed due to s.91 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; preliminary decree for partition granted.

Orders

  • Appellants Subhagwati and Shiromani each entitled to one-fourth share in joint family properties; preliminary decree for partition to be drawn up.
  • Question of specific properties to be decided by trial court in final decree proceedings.