(3) The family agreement may even be oral and no registration is required; 7. The objection to the admissibility of the document is twofold: first, it is prepared on insufficiently stamped paper, and second, it is an unregistered document written on total stamped paper with a value of Rs.10/. Section 40 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act states that the deed of partition bears the same obligation as a substantive obligation for the amount or market value of the separate share(s) of the property. (5) Members who may be parties to the family agreement must have title, a right or a precursor interest, or even a possible claim to the property recognized by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title, but according to the agreement, the other party waives all its claims or titles in favor of such a person and recognizes them as the sole owner, the previous title must be taken over and the family agreement will be maintained, and the courts will have no difficulty in accepting it; “The law is not such that, in all cases where a party requests that the court be able to examine an unregistered document to demonstrate the nature of the possession, the court accepts it. The cardinal principle would be whether this would lead to a violation of the mandate of section 49 of the Registration Act if it allowed the party`s case to examine an unregistered document. ” 2. Was it a settlement certificate or a settlement certificate? You can only apply for a will if the district judge (the first court of appeal) has declared that the original plaintiff was the owner of the property as well as the buildings. The Court held that it was merely a memorandum of family settlement and not a document containing the terms and recitals of the family settlement concluded under that agreement. An unregistered division is admissible as evidence and may be examined because it does not correspond to applications for division based on a previous division, as long as the said document is not used as a source of ownership for one of the property held by former Coparceners as a result of that division. “The above thesis is undisputed. In the above-mentioned case, it is also emphasized that the document is admissible as evidence as long as it is not used as the source of the title. In the present case, which is not an action for division, but an action for a finding that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the land, the defendants attempted to produce the document at issue in order not to sue the plaintiffs and to prove their claim that they are the absolute owners of the property.

how they got the same thing in a family division. In accordance with the completion of the evidence on behalf of Sampath Kumar, the complainants filed an affidavit of evidence and attempted to mark the Kharurnama and the receipt of December 8, 1993. The Court of First Instance rejected the defendant`s objections to the identification of the documents and presented the case as evidence for DW 1 on the identification of those documents. The Hon. Supreme Court noted that three judges of the Court had described the essential elements of a family settlement as follows: Regardless of its value, you can consult a local lawyer who is familiar with property laws and bring a declaratory action to declare your title on the basis of said unregistered settlement deed as well as an application for interim measure, which prevents defendants from interfering with your property. or the sale of the property until the sale of the main dispute. In order to argue that there could be an oral waiver of the share of family members in the Family And Family Agreement Regulations, counsel relied on the Supreme Court`s decision in Subraya M.N.c. Vittala M.N. (2016) 8 SCC 705. 2) The document of the family declaration for the division of property must be stamped and registered (4) It is generally known that: this registration would only be required if the terms of the family agreement are reduced in writing. Here again, a distinction must be made between a document containing the conditions and recitals of a family agreement concluded in the context of that document and a simple memorandum drawn up after the establishment of the family agreement, either for the purposes of the protocol or to inform the court of the necessary amendment.

In such a case, the memorandum itself does not create or expire any rights in immovable property and therefore does not fall within the nonsense of Article 17(2) of the Registration Act and is therefore not mandatory for registration; 3. Petitioners are applicants. They brought an action against the defendants to declare that they are the absolute owners of the Plaint Schedule House and to obtain a permanent injunction preventing the defendants/defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment. The defendants submitted written observations and challenged the appeal. During the trial, evidence was recorded on both sides and the case was available for arguments. At that time, the defendants filed the I. A.No.789 of 2008 to reopen the evidence and another I.A.No.790 of 2008 to recall D.W.1 for further main investigation. The above-mentioned requests were admitted on [deleted]. During the new main hearing of D.W.1, the defendants attempted to mark as evidence an unregistered document entitled “pampakapu jabitha” (division list), which was [deleted]. The applicants objected on the ground that that document had not been drawn up on paper or properly registered and that that document was a manifestly inadmissible act of division. After hearing both parties on the admissibility or inadmissibility of that document, the senior civil judge, by the contested decision [deleted] from the date, allowed the defendants to mark that document as evidence, on the basis that that document is only a list of divisions and not an act of division and therefore does not require stamp duty or registration duty.

Aggrieved by the same thing, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that it had been clearly established that there was not only a unilateral family agreement between the parties, but that it had even been implemented without exception. Relying on the judgment of the Madras High Court in A.C. Lakshmipathy and Others.c A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and Others. AIR 2001 Madras 135, the Bank considered that it was not necessary to stamp it with regard to stamp duty. However, after the signing of the Memorandum on Family Arrangement, new issues were raised by a few parties in order to move away from the family agreement. 10. Counsel for the defendant argued that even an unregistered division is admissible as evidence in order to prove a secondary purpose, such as the division of the status, nature and character of the property, and in that context he relied on a decision in PALLAPOTHU NAGA PRASAD and Others. PALLAPOTHU VENKATA KRISHNA RAO and Others, 2003(6) ALT 631, ruled as follows:- The certificate of family establishment, if not registered, is not admissible before the courts. Only if the act repeats what the parties had already agreed and complies with the conditions even before the execution of the family act, only its registration is not required.

The Supreme Court noted that the purpose of such an agreement is to protect the family from protracted litigation or eternal aspirations that undermine the unity and solidarity of the family and generate hatred and bad blood between the different members of the family. The lock contained in section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act is absolute, although the document, even assuming it is a past division memorandum, still falls within the definition of “instrument of sharing” under subsection 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, with respect to evidence for any purpose, including for secondary purposes, is inadmissible. The Supreme Court ruled on an appeal against a High Court decision in which the family settlement document was declared inadmissible as evidence because it was not registered and properly stamped. (1) It is necessary to read the act of the family agreement concluded by the family members 8. Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act defines “act of partition” as follows: – “act of partition” means any act by which the co-owners of a property divide that property or agree to divide that property into several tones, and also includes a final order to carry out a division, issued by a tax authority or a civil court, and an arbitral award by an arbitrator ordering a division (and a memorandum on the previous division). .

667