Second appeal limits and unregistered family settlement memoranda can still prove partition and estoppel.

In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact may be disturbed only on a genuine substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC; mere reappreciation of evidence is impermissible. An unregistered memorandum recording a family arrangement or partition is not excluded merely for want of registration where it does not itself operate as a conveyance, and it may be relied on to prove the arrangement and the parties' conduct, including by estoppel. Sale deeds may be challenged by a stranger as nominal, fictitious, collusive, or unacted upon, and the surrounding evidence must show whether title actually passed. On the facts discussed, the sale transaction was treated as not acted upon and the ownership claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact without a genuine substantial question of law; (ii) whether the unregistered document recording the family arrangement and partition was inadmissible in evidence; (iii) whether the earlier and subsequent sale deeds displaced the defendants' plea that the transaction was nominal or not acted upon.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in second appeal, could interfere with concurrent findings of fact without a genuine substantial question of law.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is confined to cases involving a substantial question of law. Concurrent findings can be disturbed only where the findings are contrary to mandatory law, contrary to binding precedent, or based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence. Reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible is impermissible in second appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court acted beyond the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in reappreciating evidence and upsetting concurrent findings.

Issue (ii): Whether the unregistered document recording the family arrangement and partition was inadmissible in evidence.

Analysis: The document was treated as a panchayat-recorded list of partitioned properties and, on the evidence, as part of a family arrangement. Such a document did not itself operate as a conveyance of title requiring compulsory registration. Even otherwise, a family settlement may operate by estoppel, and an unregistered memorandum may be relied upon as corroborative evidence of the arrangement and the conduct of the parties.

Conclusion: The document was not liable to be excluded merely for want of registration and could be looked into for the purpose of the family arrangement.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier and subsequent sale deeds displaced the defendants' plea that the transaction was nominal or not acted upon.

Analysis: A defendant who is a stranger to the sale deed may plead that the deed is void, fictitious, collusive, nominal, or not intended to be acted upon. The evidence showed serious doubt about the sale consideration, absence of mutation, and circumstances indicating that the earlier sale deed was not acted upon. The later sale deed did not overcome the defendants' plea or the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to establish title on the basis of the sale deeds, and the defendants' plea that the transaction was nominal and not acted upon was accepted.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's decree was set aside, the dismissal of the suit was restored, and the plaintiff's claim for declaration of ownership failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with only on a real substantial question of law, and a family settlement or partition memorandum, though unregistered, may be used to prove the arrangement and operate as estoppel where the evidence establishes the transaction.

---