Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balvinder Singh Sethi vs Indrajeet Singh Sethi on 24 April, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10865
1 MP-3970-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 24 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3970 of 2024
BALVINDER SINGH SETHI
Versus
INDRAJEET SINGH SETHI
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, counsel for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
being aggrieved by the order dated 9.05.2024 passed by XXVI District Judge,
Indore in COS No. 60-A/2015 whereby the application filed by the respondent
under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and section 17 of the Registration Act
raising an objection that the document dated 27.1.2008 is insufficiently stamped
and not registered, therefore the document be impounded and sent to the Collector
of Stamps, has been allowed by the impugned order.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that he is owner of the property
i.e. two shops situated at 63/12 (old NO.46) Nanda Nagar Main Road on the basis
of family settlement held in the year 1984-85 along with application for
injunction. The injunction was granted by the trial court. At the stage of evidence,
the respondent/defendant filed an application under section 35 of the Indian Stamp
Act and section 17 of the Registration Act objecting that the document executed
on 27.01.2008 is insufficiently stamped and was not registered, therefore the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10865
2 MP-3970-2024
document be impounded and same be sent to the Collector of Stamps.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the document on which the suit of
the petitioner is based upon is not an "instrument of partition" as per definition of
'instrument of partition' under section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act. It is only
'Memorandum of understanding (MOU)', and therefore, the same is not required
to be registered under section 17 of the Registration Act and the Indian Stamp Act.
In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex
Court in the matter of N.Khosla Vs. Rajlakshmi (dead) and others, (2006) 3 SCC
605 and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Agrawal Vs.
State of M.P. and another, 2011(3) MPLJ 91, Pramod Kumar Jain Vs. Mahaveer
Prasad Jain and others (W.P.No. 1750/2013), Guljarilal Jain Vs. Ravikant Shirke,
2010(1) MPLJ 580.
4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the title (Heading) of
the document is not material, it is recital of the document which is material for
deciding the nature of the document. It is argued that the document in question is
not merely a list of the property. In substance, the same is a 'partition deed' which
falls within the definition of 'instrument' and also 'instrument of partition' under
section 2(14) and 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, therefore requires compulsorily
registration and stamp duty. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance
on the following judgments - Girijanandini Devi and others Vs. Brijendra Narain
Choudhary, AIR 1967 SC 1124, The State of Mysore Vs. M/s Guduthur
Thimmappa and Son and M/s Guduthur Bros., AIR 1967 SC 1131, Bhola Singh
Vs. Preetam Singh (since dead) through L.Rs. (S.A.No. 507/2005), Avinash
Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, AIR 2009 SC 1489, Trustees of
H.C.Dhanda Trust, Indore Vs. State of M.P. and othrs, 2018(1) MPLJ 318,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10865
3 MP-3970-2024
Hazrami Gangaram Vs. Kamla Bai and other, AIR 1968 A.P. 213 (V 55 C 49),
Omprakash Vs. Laxminarayan and others, (2014) 1 SCC 618, Gangashankar
Dubey Vs. Sindhu Bai and others, 2021 SCC Online 2564 and Pramod Kumar Vs.
Vimladevi and others, 2017(1) MPLJ 512. In addition to the aforesaid judgments,
he has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of
Siromani Vs. Hemkumar and others, AIR 1968 SC 1299 wherein relying on the
judgment of Apex Court in the case of Nani Bi Vs. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge, it
is held that the document, effecting partition of joint Hindu family property and
value of Rs.100/- by metes and bounds require registration under section 17(1)(b)
of the Registration Act and in absence of such registration, it is inadmissible to
prove title of any of the coparceners to any of the property. Referring to the
judgment passed in the case of Omprakash (supra), counsel for the respondent
further argued that as per recital of the document in the present case, it is clear that
same was a document of partition and therefore the same was required to be
compulsorily registered and due stamp duty was to be paid. He supported the
impugned order and prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Before adverting to the merits of the said issue, it is apposite to survey
the relevant judgments cited by learned counsel for the parties.
7. In the case of N.Khosla (supra), the Apex Court held that provisions of
section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 applies only to documents that
create rights in praesenti or in future. It does not apply to documents that merely
record or proceed on the basis of any right created or extinguished in the past.
8. In the case of Suresh Kumar Agrawal(supra), a co-ordinate Bench
considered the requirement of registration and stamp duty, in respect of
'Memorandum of partition', it is held that 'acknowledging oral partition effected
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10865
4 MP-3970-2024
amongst members of Hindu Undivided Family by metes and bounds does not
require registration. No stamp duty or duty penalty can be levied on such
document. The Court has referred the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in
the case of Roshan Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 881
wherein it was held that oral partition by metes and bounds which was later on
reduced in writing as a memorandum, the said memorandum itself does not create,
assign, limit or extinguish any right title interest of party, therefore does not
require to be registered. The Supreme Court has specifically held that instrument
of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition
constituting or serving ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the
property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under section 17(1)
(b) of the Act. But it has been specifically held by the Supreme Court that a
writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a
declaration of Will, but a mere statement of fact and it does not require
registration. The Supreme Court in the case of Guljarilal Jain (supra) held that it is
settled law that the document which itself does not effect a partition but merely
records the nature acknowledging the earlier partition does not require any
registration because by executing the said document no rights are created,
declared, assigned, limited or are extinguished and therefore, the nature of this
document would not come within the purview of clause (b) and (c) of subsection
(1) to section 17 of the Registration Act. It is further held that if a document in
question merely acknowledging the earlier oral partition without mentioning any
valuation of the property which fell in share of coparcener after partition has been
mentioned, the document is not chargeable to stamp duty.
9. In the light of aforesaid enunciation of law, the facts of present case are
examined. The question arises for consideration is that "whether the document in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10865
5 MP-3970-2024
question can be construed to be an 'instrument of partition' under the definition of
section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act" or the same is a 'Memorandum of
understanding (MOU)'.
10. For deciding the said issue in the light of the above rival submissions
and the judgments cited by both the parties, it is apposite to reproduce the recital
of the document in question, which reads as under :-
"आज दनांक 27/01/08 को ी इ जीत िसंह सेठ एवं स. जोगे िसंह जी सेठ के सुपु ी
बल व दर िसंह सेठ के बीच आपसी समझौता हुआ है क
1. बल व दर िसंह सेठ पता जोगे िसंह जी सेठ का जो मकान नं 63 अपठिनय म थत है,
उसके उपर का ह सा जो क इ जीत िसंह सेठ के नाम पर है । तीन माह म इ जीत िसंह जी
सेठ इस उपर वाले ह से को ी बल व दर िसंह के नाम पर कर र ज करवा दगे व क जा
स प दगे। इसम कोई आप नह ं होगी।
2. बल व दर िसंह के पास आज दनांक 27/01/08 को 22 साल पुरानी दकु ान क जे स हत चली आ
रह ं है । इस दक
ु ान को तीन माह के अंदर खाली कर स. इ जीत िसंह सेठ को सुपुद करनी होगी।
इसम कोई आप नह ं होगी।
3. पाटनीपुरा म जो 5 दक
ु ाने जो इ जीत िसंह सेठ के नाम पर है । इन दक ु ान म तीन ह से
ह गे। जसम पहला ह सा बल व दर िसंह सेठ का होगा दस ू रा ह सा हरलीन िसंह सेठ (मो द)ु
व ितसरा ह सा वयं इ जीत िसंह सेठ का होगा। हाल यह दक ु ाने इ जीत िसंह सेठ के नाम
पर है । तीन माह म इन दक ु ान का जो भी फ ै सला होगा वह तीन िमलकर आपस म करगे। इन
तीन को पूरा अिधकार होगा क इसे तीन माह म स पे या इं तेजार कर भ व य म कभी भी बेचे।
तीन का हक बराबर होगा। हाल म हरलीन िसंह सेठ एवं बल व दर िसंह सेठ अपनी मज से
इ जीत िसंह जी को चलाने के िलए दे रह है ।
4. तीन माह म जो भी जसके ह से म ह सा आवेगा उसे वापरगे एवं तीन माह बाद जो भी
बाजार क क मत आवेगी उससे आपस म आधा आधा बांट लगे।
5. आज दनांक बल व दर िसंह सेठ व उसके उपर खाली छ जा जो क इ जीत िसंह सेठ के
नाम पर है , उसक क मत . 31 लाख आपस म तय क है व तीन माह म जो भी बाजार क मत
होगी। वह दोनो को मा य होगी।
6. इ जीत िसंह जी के मकान व दक ु ान के नीचे सेठ टे ट हाउस क जो दक
ु ान है उसक क मत
आज दनांक 27/01/08 को 25 लाख (प चीस लाख) अनुमािनत मानी है, क तु तीन मह ने बाद
जो बाजार वै यू होगी वह दोनो को मा य होगी।
7 . सेठ टे ट के आगे जो एक गोदाम है, जो बल व दर िसंह सेठ के नाम है उसक क मत
अपठिनय आज दनांक 27-1-08 को . 10 लाख (दस लाख) आक है क तु तीन मह ने बाद जो
क मत होगी वह दोन को मा य होगी।"
11. From going through the recital of the aforesaid document, it is pellucid that
the said document is not a document of partition creating rights in praesenti or in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:10865
6 MP-3970-2024
future amongst co-owners of a joint Hindu family. As per the definition of
'instrument of partition' as enshrined in section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, the
'instrument of partition' means any property whereby co-owners of any property
divide or agree to divide joint family property. The aforesaid document does not
show that there is partition of some joint family property amongst the co-owners
but it only acknowledges the settlement of the property owned by them and not a
joint Hindu family property. The said document does not create a right, assign
limit or extinguish any right, title in respect of party (co-owners) in joint Hindu
Family property. The instrument does not say that the rights of the property of
joint hindu family are being settled. In the case of Guljarilal Jain(supra), the
Division Bench held that document which itself does not effect a partition but
merely acknowledges the earlier partition does not require registration. In para
Nos.14 and 15 of the said judgment it has been mentioned that the document in
question merely acknowledging the oral partition without mentioning any
valuation of the property which fell in share of coparcener after partition has been
mentioned, the document is not chargeable to stamp duty.
12. In view of aforesaid, the instrument in question cannot be said to be an
'instrument of partition' and the same is only a 'Memorandum of understanding
(MOU)', hence no stamp duty is required to be paid. Therefore, the petition is
allowed and impugned order dated 9.05.2024 is set side.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
