SAMUDRULA VENKATAKISHNAYYA CHETTY Vs. VENKADARI RANGAYYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 are brothers of defendant 1 and are the appellants before us. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants were members of an undivided family and that defendant 1 executed the note as managing member of the family for family purposes. Defendants 2 and 3 denied that they are members of the undivided family and pleaded a partition in 1910 and also pleaded that the debt was not contracted for family necessity. The Subordinate Judge disbelieved their partition and passed a decree for the amount claimed against the three defendants. To prove the partition the defendants allege that they have put in a list which purports to be a list of the properties which fell to the share of defendants 2 and 3 and that list is signed by all the parties and also by the attesting witnesses. The Subordinate Judge rejected the list as inadmissible for want of registration and on the other evidence held against the partition. It is argued in appeal that the list was wrongly rejected as inadmissible for want of registration, and before we can satisfactorily dispose of the appeal it is necessary to decide this question. So far as the present suit is concerned it does not relate to any immovable property and the only question is whether between defendant 1 on the one hand and defendants 2 and 3 on the other there was a division in status, or whether they were joint as the note sued on is a renewal of several previous promissory notes. The first is A-l dated 2 May, 1896, the second is A-2 dated 30 of April 1899, the third is A-3 dated 26 of April 1902, the fourth is A-4 dated 15 June 1905, the fifth is A-5 dated 30 of June 1908, the sixth is A-7 dated 20 June 1911, the seventh is A-10, dated 24 June 1911, and the eighth is A-14 dated 22 June, 1914. The contention is that there was a division in status in 1910 and that defendant 1 then ceased to be the manager and that the notes executed by him, viz,. Exs. A. 7 A-10, and A-14, consequently would not bind others. It is clear that where there is a division of status the person, who was the managing member before there was such a division, ceased to represent the family afterwards and the notes renewed by him would not bind the persons who are already divided in status. The only relevant document that is sought to be put in here is a list of partition to show whether there was a division in status or not. On this point Gnanamuthu Nadan V/s. Vailukanda Nadathi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 542 and Saraswatamma v. Paddayya A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 297 are clear authorities for the view that a list like the present one is admissible in evidence to show a division of status.

(2.) Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Varada Pillai V/s. Jeevarathanammal A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 44 held that though the document is inadmissible for want of registration as a deed of gift, it is admissible to prove the nature of the possession taken under the gift. This decision has in effect overruled the previous decisions of this Court which held that you should not look into the document even for the collateral purpose of showing the nature of possession. Section 49, Registration Act, only says that it cannot be used to affect the immovable property. If there was any immovable :property in the present case the title to which was sought to be affected by reason of this list, it might be argued with some force that this list would be inadmissible in evidence, but, as pointed out before, no immovable property is involved and the question of division of status alone is sought to be decided, and the fact that such a decision may ultimately have some effect upon immovable property would not attract the provisions of the Registration Act. If an unregistered document can be used in evidence to show the nature of the possession acquired by the parties and also to prove that they have acquired a title by adverse possession [and that is the effect of the ruling of the Privy Council in Varada Pillai v. Jeevarathnammal A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 44] it is difficult to see how we can reject a document which is used to show that there was a division of status and is not used to support any claim to immovable property.

(3.) Our attention has been called to Gopayya V/s. Krishnayya A.I.R. 1923 Mad 160 and to Veerappan V/s. Mylia Udayan A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1007. It is difficult to see how these decisions can be taken. to have overruled the decisions in. Gnanamuthu Nadan V/s. Vailukanda Nadathi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 542 and Saraswatamma V/s. Paddayya A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 297. The former only decides that, if the parties had treated a share list as final, the document would be inadmissible without registration. The latter case (Spencer and Venkatasubba Rao, JJ.) recognized the distinction between the using of a document to prove a division of status and the use to show title to specific immovable property. We see no reason to dissent from the view in Gnanamuthu Nadan V/s. Vailukanda Nadathi A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 542 and Saraswatamma, V/s. Paddayya A.I.R. 1923 Mad. 297 and we are of opinion that the list now sought to be filed is admissible in evidence for the purposes of proving a division in status.