Unregistered family arrangements amounting to partition deeds are inadmissible for want of compulsory registration.

The appellants (legal representatives of the original plaintiff, Gopal) challenged the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court which dismissed their suit for confirmation of possession, partition, and a declaration that a Will dated 15.02.1993 was null and void

The plaintiff and defendants are siblings and children of the late Bhagmania Bai, who owned the suit properties

The plaintiff asserted an oral partition and a subsequent written family arrangement (Vyavastha Patra) dated 18.04.2006 following Bhagmania Bai's death

Conversely, Defendant No. 1 claimed title via a registered Will executed by Bhagmania Bai in 1993

The plaintiff contested the Will’s validity, arguing it was forged because it included land already sold by the testatrix in 1980

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the family arrangement inadmissible due to lack of registration and the Will duly proved by attesting witnesses

The First Appellate Court affirmed these findings

1. Whether the registered Will dated 15.02.1993 (Ex. D-1) was validly executed and proved in accordance with the Indian Succession Act, 1925

2. Whether the Vyavastha Patra (family arrangement) dated 18.04.2006 was admissible in evidence despite being an unregistered partition deed

3. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts presented any substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)

Section 100 of the CPC, which restricts the jurisdiction of Second Appeals to cases involving a "substantial question of law" and prohibits interference with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence

The Registration Act, 1908, which mandates that documents in the nature of a partition deed must be registered to be admissible as evidence

The Indian Succession Act, 1925, requiring the testimony of attesting witnesses to prove due execution

State of Rajasthan v. Shiv Dayal (2019) 8 SCC 637, affirming that concurrent findings of fact cannot be assailed in a second appeal unless recorded de hors the pleadings or through a misreading of evidence

The High Court observed that the Trial Court had specifically framed and addressed the issue of the Will’s validity, determining that the plaintiff failed to prove forgery

The Court noted that the execution of the Will (Ex. D-1) was established through the testimony of an attesting witness, and the inclusion of previously sold property did not inherently render the Will suspicious, given the testatrix was illiterate

Regarding the Vyavastha Patra, the Court found that a prior ruling in WPC No. 6834/2010 had already established that the document was an unregistered partition deed and thus inadmissible; this order had attained finality

The Court reasoned that the appellants' arguments essentially sought a re-appreciation of evidence rather than addressing a legal error

Since the findings of the lower courts were based on a proper appreciation of evidence and followed settled legal principles regarding registration and testamentary proof, no perversity was found

The Court affirmed the findings of the lower courts, ruling that the registered Will (Ex. D-1) was validly proved and that the unregistered Vyavastha Patra could not be considered as evidence of partition

The judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were upheld