#Registration #subregistraroffice
Andhra High CourtKanamathareddi Kanna Reddy vs Kanamatha Reddy Venkata Reddy on 9 October, 1964Equivalent citations: AIR 1965 AP 274Author: G NairBench: P C Reddy, G Nair, VenkatesamJUDGMENT Gopalakrishanan Nair, J
The Indian Registration Act unlike the Transfer of Property Act strikes only at document and not attransactions". As the Privy Council has pointed out in M. E. Moolla and sons Ltd. v. OfficialAssignee, Rangoon, ILR 14 Rang. 400 : (AIR 1936 PC 230 ), " the provisions of the Registration Actby themselves would not operate to render invalid a mere oral sale. " In the same way " the IndianRegistration Act does not require that a transaction affecting immovable properties should be carried out by a registered document." vide, Panchapagesa v. Kalyanasundaram, .
The defendant also sold portions of the lands which were held and enjoyed by him exclusively afterthe partition. Exhibit B. 5 dated 26-5-1959 and Ex. B. 6. dated 26-12-1958 are the registered saledeeds executed by him. The purchaser have given evidence that they have been in undisturbedpossession and enjoyment of the lands purchased by them under the sale deeds. Ex. B 3. showspayment of tax by the defendant in respect of the properties in his separate possession. Exhibits A. 2and A. 3 are the tax receipts obtained by the plaintiff in respect of the properties in his exclusivepossession. Exhibit B. 2 is the registered exchange deed executed between the defendant and D. W.5 who is the defendant's paternal uncle. An item of land in the separate possession of the defendantwas given to D. W. 5 and another piece of land which was convenient to the defendant was taken inexchange from D. W. 5. The further circumstances which shows that defendant was in separatepossession of lands is that he obtained tobacco licence issued by the Central Excise Department. Thelicence to cultivate tobacco on some of the suit properties was obtained only by the plaintiff prior tothe partition of 1958. That was when he was in possession of the properties as the father andmanager of the joint family.The plaintiff himself stated that prior to 1958 he himself was cultivating the entire suit lands. Butafter 1958, he has been cultivating only a portion of the suit lands and the defendant, the otherportion. This is what the evidence in the case discloses. The evidence of the defendant as D. W. 7that the day after the execution of the partition deed, the lands which fell to the share of the plaintiffand the defendant were separately taken possession of by each of them, appears to be acceptable, ona consideration of the evidence , the surrounding circumstances and the probabilities of the case. Infact, when the plea of coercion set up in the plaint fails, the only circumstances to vitiate thepartition disappears. What remains is all against the plaintiff's case that the property continued tobe joint family property.(25) We are satisfied, an a consideration of the entire evidence in the case and the reasonableemerging therefrom, that a partition of the joint family properties took place. between the plaintiffand the defendant in May, 1958. We therefore uphold the finding of the court below regarding thefactum of a physical partition of the joint family properties between the plaintiff and the defendantin May, 1958.(26) In the result, this appeal fails and has to be dismissed with costs. The memorandum ofcross-objections filed by the defendant does not arise for consideration. In fact, when the suit wasdismissed in toto by the Court below, there was no point in preferring cross-objections The learnedCounsel himself has noted practically to this effect at the foot of the cross-objection preferred byhim. Anyway, the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant has not pressed his cross-objections- and rightly. Cross-objection are dismissed as necessary without any order as to costs.Appeal and Cross-objections (27) dismissed.
