DURAIPANDIAN Vs. TAMILJOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 117 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court , tenkasi is the revision petitioner.

(2.) THE said suit was filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs for partition. THE revision petitioner is the son of the first wife of the fourth plaintiff and respondents 1 to 3 are the daughters of the second wife of the fourth plaintiff. Alleging that the family remains undivided, the said suit was filed for partition. In the written statement filed by the revision petitioner, he alleged that between himself and the fourth plaintiff, there was an oral partition on the basis of the Panchayat and plaintiffs 1 to 3 also relinquished their claim and agreed for a division and on the basis of the panchayat held, the properties were taken possession. To substantiate that there was a panchayat and consequent oral partition, the petitioner relied upon a memorandum of settlement executed between himself and the fourth plaintiff dated 21. 4. 1996 and he wanted the said document to be admitted in evidence. THE respondents herein opposed the marking of the document on the ground that the document dated 21. 4. 1996 is compulsorily registerable under section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act and consequently, it should not be considered for any purpose. THE lower Court accepted the objection and refused to mark the same. THE same is challenged in this revision petition.

(3.) S r| ]j w :. * | " and giveS the liSt of propertieS taken by the fourth plaintiff and the reviSion petitioner. A reading of the document i S very clear that it recordS only a paSt tranSaction and the diviSion haS already taken place on the baSiS of the panchayat, and no intereSt iS created on the baSiS of the inStrument.