TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the property allotted to a son on partition retained the character of coparcenary property in favour of his sons and grandson; (ii) whether the unregistered deed of exchange affecting immovable property was admissible in evidence and capable of transferring rights; and (iii) whether the appellant could claim protection under the doctrine of part performance without pleading possession in that capacity.
Issue (i): whether the property allotted to a son on partition retained the character of coparcenary property in favour of his sons and grandson.
Analysis: Property inherited by a male Hindu from his father or paternal ancestors is ancestral property under Mitakshara law, and the sons, grandsons and great-grandsons acquire an interest in it by birth. The share obtained on partition of ancestral property remains ancestral in relation to male issue. Applying this principle, the property allotted to the father in the partition continued to be coparcenary property vis-a -vis his sons and grandson.
Conclusion: The property retained the character of coparcenary property, and the plaintiffs had a sufficient right to maintain the suit.
Issue (ii): whether the unregistered deed of exchange affecting immovable property was admissible in evidence and capable of transferring rights.
Analysis: An exchange of property is governed by the same mode of transfer as a sale when immovable property, or property of value of one hundred rupees or more, is involved. Such a transaction must be effected by a registered instrument. A document required to be registered but not registered cannot affect immovable property or be received in evidence of the transaction. Since the deed of exchange included an RCC building and was unregistered, it could not validly operate to transfer rights in the immovable property and was inadmissible.
Conclusion: The unregistered exchange deed was inadmissible in evidence and ineffective to the extent it dealt with immovable property.
Issue (iii): whether the appellant could claim protection under the doctrine of part performance without pleading possession in that capacity.
Analysis: The protection of part performance requires a specific plea that possession was taken in part performance of the contract. In the absence of such pleading, the equitable protection cannot be invoked. The appellant's written statement did not contain the necessary plea.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the benefit of part performance.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the decree failed because the property remained coparcenary in relation to the plaintiffs, the exchange deed was ineffective and inadmissible, and the plea of part performance was not available on the pleadings.
TaxTMI 
