A writing that merely records a past oral partition does not require registration.

The plaintiff claimed the suit property through two sale deeds dated 30 June and 7 July 2008, executed by Durairaj and Sridharan.

Their father, Sundaram, had allegedly received the property under an oral partition, recorded in an undertaking dated 10 January 1996 (Ex.A6), and later settled it on his sons.

The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s title and possession, asserting that the property had been allotted to him under an earlier partition and challenging the relevant documents.

The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for permanent injunction; the First Appellate Court reversed and granted the injunction.

The defendant appealed under Section 100 CPC.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court could rely on the unregistered undertaking, Ex.A6, to support the alleged prior oral partition, despite the objection that its attesting witnesses were not examined.

2. Whether the plaintiff could rely on the subsequent sale deeds, Exs.A1 and A2, when the defendant disputed the original allotment to Sundaram.

3. Whether a suit for bare injunction was maintainable in light of the competing claims to title, or whether the plaintiff was required to seek a declaration.

Section 100 CPC limits second appeals to substantial questions of law.

Under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, a document that itself creates, declares, assigns, limits or extinguishes rights in immovable property may require compulsory registration; a document that merely records an antecedent oral partition or acknowledges an existing arrangement is assessed according to its nature and purpose.

The requirement to prove execution through an attesting witness depends on whether the document is one required by law to be attested.

A bare injunction may be inadequate where a genuine cloud over title requires adjudication, but an injunction may be granted where possession is established and adjudication of a complicated title dispute is unnecessary.

The judgment cited no specific precedent.

The Court treated Ex.A6 as an undertaking acknowledging that the property had already been allotted to Sundaram and recording that the executants had no claim, rather than assuming that its unregistered status automatically made it inadmissible.

It held that the document’s evidentiary value had to be assessed alongside the alleged oral partition and the other evidence; likewise, the absence of attesting-witness testimony was not automatically fatal because the applicable proof requirement depended on the document’s legal character.

The Court considered Ex.A6 together with the settlement deed and the plaintiff’s sale deeds, and found no legal infirmity in the First Appellate Court’s assessment.

It also concluded that the competing title claims did not warrant interference with the injunction granted on the evidence before the appellate court.

It dismissed the second appeal, confirmed the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree granting permanent injunction, made no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.