The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated November 6, 2025, has set aside the concurrent findings of the Karnataka High Court and a Bengaluru Trial Court in a long-standing partition suit. The bench, comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice N.V. Anjaria, held that a registered release deed executed by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately and does not depend on being “acted upon” for its efficacy. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an unregistered partition deed (palupatti) can be relied upon for the limited collateral purpose of proving severance of joint family status.
The Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2006, filed by the legal heirs of P. Anjanappa (Defendant No. 5), and substituted the lower courts’ decrees with a fresh preliminary decree, fundamentally altering the shares of the parties in the suit schedule properties.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated with Original Suit No. 146 of 1987, filed before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, for partition and separate possession of properties. The parties trace their lineage to one Pillappa. The plaintiffs, led by A.P. Nanjundappa (Plaintiff No. 1), claimed that “Schedule A” properties were joint family properties and that “Schedule B” properties, though purchased in the joint names of Defendant No. 5 and Defendant No. 6, were acquired from joint family income and were also liable for partition.
Defendant No. 5 contested the suit, arguing that a partition had already taken place. His defense relied on two registered release deeds executed by Plaintiff No. 2 (Ex.D-15, dated 09.11.1956) and Defendant No. 3 (Ex.D-16, dated 14.09.1967), relinquishing their rights. He also relied on an unregistered palupatti (partition deed) dated 11.02.1972 (Ex.D-17) which allegedly recorded a partition between himself and Plaintiff No. 1.
The Trial Court, by its decree dated 19 August 1994, rejected these defenses. It held that the unregistered palupatti could not be received in evidence and that the registered release deeds were not shown to have been “acted upon.” The High Court of Karnataka, in Regular First Appeal No. 750 of 1994, dismissed the appeal by its judgment dated 30 August 2005, affirming the Trial Court’s findings. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court formulated three primary questions for determination: I. The validity and legal effect of the two registered release deeds (Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16). II. Whether the unregistered palupatti (Ex.D-17) could be relied upon for collateral purposes. III. The consequential determination of the partitionable estate and the parties’ shares.
I. Validity of the Release Deeds
The Court held that the lower courts’ reasoning for rejecting the release deeds was “misconceived.”
Regarding Ex.D-15 (release by Plaintiff No. 2), the Court noted it was a registered deed more than thirty years old, attracting the presumption under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Citing Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006), the bench observed, “There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed… The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption.” The Court found no credible rebuttal was led by the plaintiffs.
Rejecting the “not acted upon” reasoning, the judgment states: “A release by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately to divest his subsisting coparcenary interest; it does not depend for its efficacy on any further act of implementation.”
Regarding Ex.D-16 (release by Defendant No. 3), the Court noted its execution was admitted and consideration was shown. It dismissed the High Court’s observations on stamp duty, holding that “no timely, specific objection on stamp duty was pressed… and the instrument having been received in evidence, its admissibility on that score cannot be re-agitated at the appellate stage.”
The Court concluded that Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 were valid and binding, effectively severing Plaintiff No. 2 (from 1956) and Defendant No. 3 (from 1967) from the coparcenary.
II. Admissibility of the Unregistered ‘Palupatti’
The Court next analyzed Ex.D-17, the unregistered palupatti of 1972. It held that while such a document cannot be used to prove a partition by metes and bounds, it is admissible for limited, collateral purposes.
Citing Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa (2019), the Court affirmed that “even without registration a written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties.”
The bench found that the document qualified for such collateral use, as Plaintiff No. 1 had admitted his signature, and subsequent conduct corroborated the severance. The judgment noted: “The long and consistent course of conduct that followed confirms the reality of disruption on 11.02.1972. The parties lived separately and cooked separately. They cultivated distinct survey numbers in different villages. Plaintiff no. 1 dealt with his lands as owner, including mortgages and later transactions.”
The Court concluded that the lower courts’ approach “does not withstand scrutiny” and that they had “misdirected” themselves on the legal effect of the established conduct. The Court held that Ex.D-17 was reliable for “proviing that, on and from 11.02.1972, there was severance of joint status between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5.”
The Final Decision and New Decree
Based on these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the lower courts’ judgments and substituted a fresh preliminary decree.
Re-computation of Shares: The Court determined that at the time of the propositus (Pillappa’s) death in 1969, the coparcenary consisted only of Pillappa, Plaintiff No. 1, and Defendant No. 5 (Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 having already exited via release deeds).
- A notional partition under the unamended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would allot 1/3 share each to Pillappa, Plaintiff No. 1, and Defendant No. 5.
- Pillappa’s 1/3 share would then devolve by succession among his seven children alive at the time (Plaintiff No. 1, Defendant No. 5, and the five daughters). Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 take nothing “by virtue of their binding releases.”
- Each of the seven children thus receives 1/7 of Pillappa’s 1/3 share (i.e., 1/21) in addition to their coparcenary share.
Terms of the New Decree: The Supreme Court passed the following orders:
- The partitionable pool shall consist of Schedule A and items 1 to 16 of Schedule C.
- Shares over this pool are fixed as follows: Plaintiff No. 1 at 8/21; Defendant No. 5 at 8/21; and each of the five daughters’ branches at 1/21. Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 take no share.
- Schedule B and item 17 of Schedule C are excluded from the hotchpot (family pool) and shall be held in equal halves (1/2) by Defendant No. 5 and Defendant No. 6.
- The Trial Court was directed to draw the final decree by metes and bounds in conformity with this judgment.
