1939 (3) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hree items was purchased in the names of the appellant's father and the first respondent's brother. On the dissolution it was agreed that the immovable properties should not be divided among the partners, but should be held by them as joint tenants with equal rights. The terms of the dissolution were set out in full in the firm's daybook and the statement (Ex. A) was signed by all the partners. The appellant's father died in 1921 and the first respondent's brother in 1918. The immovable properties eventually came into the possession of the appellant. In 1928 the first respondent filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Gooty for partition of the properties and delivery to him of the one-third share which he cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e District Judge on the question of the ownership of the properties because we consider that the appellant is Entitled to succeed on his contention that Ex. A required to be registered. 3. Ex. A, after describing the immovable properties purchased by the firm out of the partnership assets proceeds: Panyam Yerakalanna, Alasyam Nettakalappa and Voruganti Basappa, these three individuals, have rights for equal shares in the amount of Rs. 1,106-3-1 mentioned in the balance sheet from Nos. 1 to 9, and to the lands mentioned in pages 232-233. 4. Particulars of the amount of debts to the extent of Rs. 2,597-8-9 mentioned in pages 10 to 13 which have to be paid by us three, mentioned in numbers 14 to 16 - particulars thereof: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Registration Act requires non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, any right, title, or interest, in immovable property to be registered. In our opinion Ex. A is an instrument which declares the rights in the properties from the date of dissolution of the partnership and therefore should have been registered. As it is not registered it cannot be given in evidence by reason of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act. In Bageshwari Charan Singh v. Jagarnath Kuari (1931) 62 M.L.J. 296 : L.R. 59 I.A. 130 : I.L.R. 11 Pat. 272 (P.C.), the Privy Council accepted the interpretation of the word "declare" given by West, J., in Sakharam Krishnaji v. Madan Krishnaji (1881) I.L.R. 5 Bom. 232,....