A family-arrangement agreement contemplating a future registered partition deed is admissible but requires specific performance for enforcement.

Rama Boyan originally purchased the suit properties as his self-acquired properties under a sale deed dated 30 December 1938. On 14 August 1968, he conveyed the suit properties in the name of his son Nagaraj under Ex.B.2. Arumugam, Nagaraj’s brother, claimed that he had contributed towards the purchase and subsequent construction of houses on the properties, and that the properties were intended for the benefit of both brothers.

On 22 December 1992, Arumugam and Nagaraj entered into a written “Panchayat Partition Agreement” (Ex.A.1), under which the northern and southern portions of the properties were separately allotted to them. The document recorded that the arrangement had been acted upon and that a formal registered document would be executed subsequently.

After Nagaraj asserted a claim over Arumugam’s allotted portion, Arumugam instituted O.S. No.361 of 2001 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. Nagaraj’s legal heirs instituted O.S. No.330 of 2001 seeking partition of the entire property. The Trial Court held that the properties were Nagaraj’s self-acquired properties and that Ex.A.1 was invalid and inadmissible because it was allegedly unstamped and unregistered. It dismissed Arumugam’s suit and decreed the partition suit. The First Appellate Court affirmed the findings. Arumugam thereafter filed the two second appeals.

Whether the Courts below erred in holding that Ex.A.1 was unstamped and unregistered, and therefore inadmissible, despite its having been executed on a Rs.10 stamp paper?

Whether Ex.A.1 was a partition deed creating present rights in immovable property, or merely a family arrangement/agreement contemplating the execution of a future registered document?

Whether Arumugam could rely upon the family arrangement despite not having an established pre-existing title in the suit properties?

Whether the reliefs sought in the two suits were maintainable, or whether Arumugam was required to institute a suit for specific performance of Ex.A.1?

The Court applied the principles governing family arrangements laid down in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, namely that family arrangements made honestly to resolve doubtful or disputed claims and preserve family peace should be liberally upheld, even where a party possesses only a semblance of a claim.

A document which merely records or evidences an arrangement and contemplates the execution of a future registered instrument is not necessarily compulsorily registrable as a partition deed.

Under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as amended in Tamil Nadu, a Rs.10 stamp paper was sufficient for the agreement under Schedule I, Article 5(j).

Since Ex.A.1 contemplated a future registered partition deed and did not itself operate as the final conveyance or partition instrument, it was not inadmissible merely for want of registration.

The arrangement was also treated as a specifically enforceable agreement under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, with the period spent in the earlier proceedings capable of exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Court accepted the concurrent finding that the properties were originally Rama Boyan’s self-acquired properties and that the 1968 sale deed stood in Nagaraj’s name.

However, it found that the execution of Ex.A.1 was proved through the testimony of the attesting witnesses and the scribe, as well as through prior pleadings and evidence in O.S. No.119 of 1999, where Nagaraj’s legal heirs had relied upon and admitted the arrangement.

The Court held that the prior admissions established that the arrangement had been acted upon and that the brothers were separately possessing their respective portions.

Ex.A.1 was not a completed partition deed; its language showed that the parties had agreed to reduce the arrangement into a formal registered document in the future.

Accordingly, the absence of registration did not render it inadmissible, and the Rs.10 stamp paper was sufficient for the agreement. Nevertheless, because Ex.A.1 contemplated execution of a registered partition deed, Arumugam could not obtain a declaration of title directly on its basis; his appropriate remedy was a suit for specific performance.

S.A. No.1441 of 2007 was allowed, and the decree in O.S. No.330 of 2001 granting partition of the entire property was set aside; that suit was dismissed.

S.A. No.1442 of 2007 was dismissed, and the dismissal of O.S. No.361 of 2001 was confirmed because a declaration and injunction suit was not the proper remedy.

Arumugam was granted liberty to file a fresh suit for specific performance and consequential reliefs based on Ex.A.1 within three months. The Court directed that limitation would not be raised against him, subject to an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the time bona fide spent in the present proceedings. No order as to costs was made.