Basuki Nath Trigunait vs Amalendu Trigunait And Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1826 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Basuki Nath Trigunait vs Amalendu Trigunait And Ors on 20 January, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                                    S.A. No. 222 of 2020

                     Basuki Nath Trigunait                      ...      ...      Appellant
                                         Versus
                     Amalendu Trigunait and Ors.          ...        ...        Respondents
                                         ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

                For the Appellant         : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
                                          : Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate
                For the Respondents       :
                                          ---
07/20.01.2025          Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a partition suit was filed but the same was refused to be decreed on the ground that there was no unity of title and possession with respect to the suit properties. He submits that reliance has been placed on an unregistered family settlement dated 28.03.2001 (Exhibit B). The learned counsel submits that the said document itself created partition, and therefore, the same was required to be compulsorily registered.

3. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (1976) 3 SCC 119 (Kale and Ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.) and submitted that even if the document was an admitted document, the same could not have been relied upon to say that the partition had taken place. He has referred to Section 17 read with Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and has proposed the following substantial question of law:

"(i) Whether the family settlement document dated 28.03.2021 (Exhibit B), a Memorandum of partition or a partition deed in view of its recital, which reflects the purport to create, declare, assign the right of the immovable joint property and thus it is not a memorandum rather a partition deed, which compulsorily requires registration in terms of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 and can be looked into as it is not complying with the provision of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899?

(ii) Whether in view of the Section 17 read with section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, the family settlement document (Exhibit B) could have been admitted into evidence?"

4. Considering the submissions, this appeal will be heard on the aforesaid substantial questions of law.

5. Issue notice to the respondents under ordinary process, for which requisites be filed by 31.01.2025.

6. Let the records be called for from the concerned court.

7. Post this case on 25.03.2025 in the supplementary cause list.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Saurav/