Partition deed registration and part performance: unregistered instruments creating present rights are inadmissible, and Section 53A does not apply.

An unregistered partition instrument that embodies the full partition arrangement, including allotment of properties, equalisation payments, debts and mutual indemnity, is treated as creating rights in presenti and therefore requires registration; if unregistered, it is inadmissible in evidence. A partition arrangement also does not fall within Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act because partition is not a transfer of immovable property for consideration: it only converts joint enjoyment into separate enjoyment based on antecedent title. Accordingly, possession claimed under such an arrangement cannot be protected by part performance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the unregistered partition document was admissible in evidence or required registration because it created a present interest in immovable property. (ii) Whether a partition arrangement falls within the scope of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (i): Whether the unregistered partition document was admissible in evidence or required registration because it created a present interest in immovable property.

Analysis: The document embodied the entire arrangement of partition, including allotment of properties, payment for equalisation, debts and mutual indemnity, and it did not merely record a future arrangement. Its recitals showed that rights in the properties were created in presenti. A document of that character attracts the registration provisions, and an unregistered instrument of partition affecting immovable property cannot be received in evidence.

Conclusion: The document required registration and was inadmissible in evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether a partition arrangement falls within the scope of part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: Section 53A applies only where there is a contract to transfer immovable property for consideration. A partition does not operate as a conveyance from one person to another; it only converts joint enjoyment into enjoyment in severalty. Each sharer takes the allotted property by virtue of antecedent title, not under a fresh transfer. On that footing, a partition arrangement is not a transfer of property within the meaning of the section, and the doctrine of part performance cannot be invoked to protect possession taken under such an arrangement.

Conclusion: A partition arrangement does not fall within Section 53A, and the defendant could not rely on part performance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the partition document was unregistered and inadmissible, and the doctrine of part performance was inapplicable to a partition.

Ratio Decidendi: A partition of joint family property is not a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as it merely alters the form of enjoyment from joint possession to separate possession on the basis of antecedent title.

---