Supreme Court Upholds Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property: Shyam Narayan Prasad vs. Krishna Prasad (2 July 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 2 July 2018. Citation: [Not Available]. Judges: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre. Can a property obtained in a family partition be considered ancestral property for future generations? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the rights of lineal descendants in such properties. The court held that property obtained by a coparcener in a partition of ancestral property remains coparcenary property for his male issue. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case revolves around a family dispute over property originally owned by Gopalji Prasad. Gopalji had five sons: Laxmi Prasad (Respondent No. 5) and Shyam Narayan Prasad (Appellant), among others. In a family partition dated 31 July 1987, Gopalji divided his properties among his sons, retaining some for himself. Laxmi Prasad received a share including a liquor shop in Singtam Bazar, while Shyam Narayan Prasad was allotted a shoe shop in Manihari, among other properties.

Subsequently, on 30 January 1990, Laxmi Prasad and Shyam Narayan Prasad entered into an agreement to exchange their respective shops. The sons and grandson of Laxmi Prasad (Respondent Nos. 1 to 4) filed a suit challenging this exchange, arguing that the property was ancestral and that Laxmi Prasad did not have the right to exchange it without their consent. They contended that the exchange deed was invalid as it was unregistered and dealt with immovable property.

The plaintiffs argued that the property was ancestral, and they had a right in it. The defendants argued that the property was not ancestral and the exchange was valid.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the property was ancestral and that the plaintiffs had a right to it. The court declared the exchange deed invalid. The first defendant appealed to the District Judge, who reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs then filed a second appeal before the High Court of Sikkim. The High Court set aside the District Judge’s judgment and restored the trial court’s decree, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Mitakshara Law: The court referred to the principles of Mitakshara law, which govern the inheritance of ancestral property. According to this law, sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons acquire an interest in ancestral property by birth.
• Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section defines “exchange” as the mutual transfer of ownership of one thing for another, neither being money alone. It also states that a transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in the manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale. “When two persons mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another, neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an “exchange”. A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale”
• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section deals with the sale of immovable property and requires that such transfers be made by a registered instrument if the value of the property is Rs. 100 or more.
• Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908: This section specifies the effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. It states that an unregistered document cannot affect any immovable property, confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. “No document required by section 17 {or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)}, to be registered shall-(a)affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b)confer any power to adopt, or (c)Be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, Unless it has been registered:”
• Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908: This section mandates that any document which has the effect of creating and taking away the rights in respect of an immovable property must be registered.
• Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: This section deals with part performance of a contract and protects a transferee who has taken possession of the property in part performance of a contract, provided certain conditions are met.
• Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that the best evidence of the contents of a document is the document itself.

Arguments

Appellant (Defendant No. 1) Arguments:

• The property was not ancestral but self-acquired by Gopalji Prasad, and he divided it among his sons through a partition deed dated 1 March 1988.
• The agreement dated 30 January 1990 was only for the transfer of businesses, not the buildings.
• The sons and grandson of Defendant No. 2 had no right to seek cancellation of the deed as there was no exchange of immovable property.
• The settlement deed did not require registration as it was only for businesses and not immovable property.
• The parties acted upon the agreement, and the appellant’s possession was protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Respondents (Plaintiffs) Arguments:

• The property was ancestral and the plaintiffs, being lineal descendants of Defendant No. 2, had rights over it.
• The deed of settlement dated 30 January 1990 was a transfer of immovable property, which required registration.
• The deed was not registered and hence inadmissible as evidence.
• Defendant No. 1 did not plead in his written statement that he had taken possession of the property in part performance of the contract, so he could not claim the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the property allotted to Defendant No. 2 in the partition dated 31 July 1987 retained the character of a coparcenary property.
2. Whether the exchange deed at Exhibit P2 is admissible in evidence.
3. Whether the appellant (Defendant No. 1) is entitled to the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Defined “exchange” and its requirements.
• Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Relating to sale of immovable property.
• Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908: Effect of non-registration of documents.
• Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908: Mandates registration for documents affecting rights in immovable property.
• Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: Part performance of a contract.
• Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Best evidence rule.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• C. Krishna Prasad v. C.I.T, Bangalore, 1975 (1) SCC 160:* The Supreme Court followed this case, reiterating that the share obtained by a coparcener in a partition of ancestral property remains ancestral property for his male issue.
• M. Yogendra and Ors. v. Leelamma N. and Ors. 2009 (15) SCC 184:* The Supreme Court followed this case, emphasizing that property allotted to a sole coparcener in a partition is separate property until a son is born to him.
• Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh and Ors. 2013 (9) SCC 419:* The Supreme Court followed this case, stating that property obtained in partition becomes coparcenary property upon the birth of a son to the coparcener.
• Roshan Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors. 1988 (2) SCR 1106:* The Supreme Court followed this case, holding that an unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The principle of Mitakshara law, which recognizes the rights of sons and grandsons in ancestral property by birth.
• The clear language of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which requires registration for the exchange of immovable property.
• The mandatory nature of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, which bars the admissibility of unregistered documents.
• The fact that the appellant did not plead part performance in his written statement, thus failing to meet the requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court reasoned that the property obtained by Defendant No. 2 in the partition was indeed ancestral property for his lineal descendants. It emphasized that the exchange deed, which included immovable property, required registration and was inadmissible in evidence due to non-registration. The Court also noted that the appellant failed to plead part performance of the contract, thus not qualifying for the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. They take an interest in it by birth, whether they are in existence at the time of partition or are born subsequently.”
• “A transfer of property in completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the transfer of such property by sale”
• “No document required by section 17 {or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)}, to be registered shall-(a)affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b)confer any power to adopt, or (c)Be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, Unless it has been registered:”

Key Takeaways

• Property obtained by a coparcener in a partition of ancestral property remains coparcenary property for his male issue.
• Any exchange of immovable property requires registration to be valid and admissible in evidence.
• Part performance of a contract must be specifically pleaded to claim the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
• This judgment reinforces the rights of lineal descendants in ancestral property and the importance of adhering to registration requirements for property transactions.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that property obtained by a coparcener in a partition of ancestral property retains its character as coparcenary property for his male issue. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the nature of ancestral property and the necessity of registration for property transactions. The Court did not overrule any previous positions of law but reiterated the settled principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court reaffirmed that property obtained in a partition of ancestral property remains coparcenary property for lineal descendants. It also emphasized the importance of registering documents related to immovable property transactions and the necessity of specifically pleading part performance to claim the benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.