Supreme Court upholds joint property division as family arrangement, no registration needed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions that the properties were joint, there was a division with separate possession, the agreement was a family arrangement, and did not require registration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the properties in suit are joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant 1, or the self-acquired property of defendant 1 alone.
2. Whether there was any division of the properties with separate possession and enjoyment as alleged.
3. Whether the agreement Exhibit 3 amounts to a family arrangement.
4. Whether the agreement Exhibit 3 required registration under the Indian Registration Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Joint Properties vs. Self-Acquired Property:
The appellant contested the suit on the grounds that all the properties were his self-acquired properties and that nobody else had any right, title, or claim in them. The trial court decreed the suit against defendant No. 1, holding that the properties in suit were joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The appellant's claim that the properties were his self-acquired properties was not accepted. The High Court also rejected the appellant's petition, stating that it had no force.

2. Division of Properties:
The trial court held that there had been a division of the family properties with separate possession and enjoyment by the parties as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff-respondent relied on the agreement, Exhibit 3, which incorporated the statements of the three brothers and concluded with the expression: "We the three brothers having agreed over the above statement and having made our own statements in the presence of the Punch called by us and signed and kept a copy of each of this document as proof of it." The courts below rightly held that there had been a family arrangement between the appellant and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on December 31, 1942, and that the agreement Exhibit 3 is a record of that family arrangement.

3. Family Arrangement:
The appellant contended that the agreement Exhibit 3 did not amount to a family arrangement. The appellant argued that respondent No. 1, being a uterine brother, could not be a member of their family and therefore could not participate in a family arrangement. However, this contention was not raised in the lower courts, and there was no specific denial that the brothers did not form a joint family. The courts found that there did exist disputes about the properties, which led to the family arrangement. The mother was also considered a party to the family arrangement, although her statement was not recorded in the agreement. The courts concluded that the agreement Exhibit 3 was indeed a record of the family arrangement.

4. Requirement of Registration:
The appellant argued that the agreement Exhibit 3 required registration under the Indian Registration Act. The trial court and the first appellate court held that the Registration Act was not in force in the area where the agreement was executed in 1942. The High Court opined that the agreement did not require registration even if the Registration Act was in force at that time. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts, stating that a family arrangement can be arrived at orally, and its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon. The document Exhibit 3 was considered a memorandum of what had already been decided by the parties and did not require compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with costs, upholding the decisions of the lower courts that the properties in suit were joint properties, there had been a division of the properties with separate possession and enjoyment, the agreement Exhibit 3 amounted to a family arrangement, and the agreement did not require registration.

---