https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460928 Property allotted to a son on partition of ancestral property retains its coparcenary character in relation to his male issue under Mitakshara law, so the plaintiffs had a sufficient right to sue. An exchange affecting immovable property required a registered instrument; an unregistered deed could not validly transfer rights or be received in evidence for that transaction, and was ineffective to that extent. Protection under part performance was unavailable because the appellant had not pleaded possession in that capacity. The challenge to the decree therefore failed. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Mar 2025 18:59:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460928 Property allotted to a son on partition of ancestral property retains its coparcenary character in relation to his male issue under Mitakshara law, so the plaintiffs had a sufficient right to sue. An exchange affecting immovable property required a registered instrument; an unregistered deed could not validly transfer rights or be received in evidence for that transaction, and was ineffective to that extent. Protection under part performance was unavailable because the appellant had not pleaded possession in that capacity. The challenge to the decree therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460928