TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1000 sq.mts. towards his family entitlement under Section 5(1) of the Act, since his family consists of himself and his wife only. 4. The petitioner herein contested the notice inter alia contending that the property comprised in registered sale deed dated 11.12.1962 was purchased from and out of the sale proceeds of his father's property at Chittor Road, Ernakulam, was given a sum of ₹ 10,000 for purchase of the land in his name and a sum of ₹ 14,000 left in his hands by his parents for purchase of property for the benefit of three daughters of his eldest brother, G. Divakar Pai. Till the property was purchased, the amount was treated as a loan and the interest was paid by the petitioner. His brother was mostly employed in the northern parts of India and was very reluctant to purchase any landed property in Madras or Cochin either in his own name or as guardian of his minor children, because he felt that there was always a danger of vacant land being encroached upon by squatters and it would be difficult for him to look after any such property. It was for this reason that in the month of January, 1961, an application was made in the name of the mother of the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adhy P. Shenoy, 2nd daughter of his brother was delivered to him on her behalf on the same date. All the three of them have acknowledged the receipt of the plan and his letter confirming delivery of possession on his office copies and his brother acknowledged the receipt of the same in his delivery book. Thus he had discharged an obligation imposed on him by his parents under a family arrangement and also discharged an obligation in the nature of a trust under Section 90 of the Trust Act and effected a partition of a joint property purchased with the aid of monies left by his parents for the purchase of property for himself and his brother's children, from the sale proceeds of his father's Ernakulam property, left in his hands. 5. He has produced evidence of kist receipt issued to Mrs. Latha Kini, Mrs. Madhu P. Shenoy and Mrs. Nirmala Rao as early as 14.3.1977. These receipts show the pattadar as Archbishop and Patta Number is given as 207. He has also produced receipts Issued to him for kist bearing the same patta number in earlier years. His nieces have written immediately after the partition that they are the owners of the different plots to the Ceiling Authorities wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal of property prior to the Act unless they are backed by the registered deeds. It is also contended that there is no specific reference made in the said sale deed to the effect that the said land was purchased by the petitioner for himself and his brother's daughters from and out of the sale proceeds of their ancestral property at Ernakulam, as now contended by the petitioner herein and the plea that the joint family property was partitioned orally among himself and his brother's daughters as on 27.5.1976 is not acceptable. Since the title of the said land has not been transferred from the petitioner to others by way of registered documents prior to 3.8.1976, it is correct to hold that the petitioner is the title-holder of the said entire property as on 3.8.1976. They denied the other allegations, such as no opportunity was given to the petitioner to examine the witnesses, etc. and have affirmed the reasons assigned in the impugned orders. 8. From these pleadings, the question for consideration is whether pre-Act- Partition in the form of oral family arrangement embodied under Ex.G-1 and acted upon can be recognized in law, though not registered under (Sec. 17(1)(b) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as proof of what they had arranged and, where the arrangement is brought about by the document as such, that the document would require registration as it is then that it would be a document of title declaring for future what rights in what properties the parties possess. In Sahu Madho Doss v. Pandit Mukand Ram, AIR 1955 SC 481, the Apex Court appears to have amplified the doctrine of validity of the family arrangement to the farthest possible extent, where Bose, J., speaking for the Court, observed as follows:- It is well settled that a compromise or family arrangement is based on the assumption that there is an antecedent title of some sort in the parties and the agreement acknowledges and defines what that little is, each party relinquishing all claims to property other than that falling to his share and recognising the right of the others, as they had previously asserted it, to the portions allotted to them respectively. That explains why no conveyance is required in these cases to pass the title from the one in whom it resides to the person receiving it under the family arrangement. It is assumed that the title claimed by the person receiving the property under the ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, [1976] 3 SCR 202 and Ramcharandas v. Girijanandini Devi and ors., [1965] 3 SCR 841, also took the same view and held that a family arrangement proceeds on the assumption that the parties, in whose favour the arrangement was made and who, under that arrangement, come to have definite and positive share in the property, is not a transfer but is only a recognition of the title already existing in them. It was also pointed out by this Court in Tek Bahadur Bhujil v. Debi Singh Bhujil and ors., AIR 1966 SC 292, as also in an earlier decision in Ramcharandas v. Girija Nandini Devi, [1965] 3 SCR 841 that it was not necessary to show that every person taking a benefit under a family arrangement had a possible claim or even if they are related, a semblance of a claim. Gajendra Gadkar, C.J. in V. N. Sarin v. Ajit Kumar Poplai, [1966] 1 SCR 349 observed that the true effect of partition was that each co-parcener got a specific property in lieu of his undivided right in respect of the totality of the property of the family. 11. Sub-clause (3) of Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 contemplates thus: ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Minerva College 3 grounds (2) B. K. Vasantha Rao 3 grounds (3) Miss. Lalitha D. Pai Miss. Mridula D. Pai Miss. Normal D. Pay 6 grounds By guardian G. D. Pai, Chief Maintenance Engineer, Orient Paper Mills, Brijraj Nagar. Balance G. Vasantha Pai, Advocate. 13. Having regard to the source of money, the correspondence and ratification, it is evident that the petitioner held this property though stood in his name for and on behalf of his brother's daughters and thus it was once belonged jointly to the members of the family or to those who are related to the petitioner and he held it as a trustee for them. Once it is held that a person is a co-owner of the lands in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, if effective at all, relates back to the date of the act ratified. An express ratification is complete when it is communicated and accepted. Ratification of one of the series of acts constitutes one transaction and operates as a ratification of the entire transaction. In the instant case, by the correspondences between the parties, the confirmation of the whole transaction and the acceptance of the same are established. 15. Another reasoning that the three daughters should have been included as Executants of the sale deed is also not correct because purchasers cannot be executants. The other reasoning that the entire correspondences are private documents and no mention has been made in the sale deed of 11.12.1962 of the shares of the three daughters is also not correct for the simple reason that the appellate authority has examined and measured the weight of all these documents as relevant and genuine documents and also held that the property meant for three nominees. So long a member of a joint family can hold the property for himself and on behalf of others, there is no bar to purchase the property in one's own name. 16. The decision relied on by the learned Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s enquiry. That having regard to the finding that the documents produced are genuine and the property was held with intent to transfer eventually to the three nominees listed under Item No. 3 of Ex.G-1, dated 27.9.1962, in such circumstances, the remand to the authority will be onerous and time consuming and serves no purpose. 20. The findings recorded by the respondent are such that no person properly instructed in law would have reached, inasmuch as they based on pure surmises and misreading of the provisions of the Act and non-application of the settled principles regarding the nature of family arrangement with reference to whether such document requires registration under the Indian Registration Act. Thus, the findings of the respondents are unsustainable in law. Consequently, the circumstances of the instant case justifies the conclusion that the Pre-Act-Partition in the form of family arrangement though not registered under (Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act is still valid in law and the authority while determining the excess vacant land under the Act cannot ignore such a partition effected by way of family arrangement. The question for consideration is answe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
