Unregistered family settlements are admissible for collateral purposes to prove severance of joint family status.

The plaintiffs (respondents herein) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction

The petitioners (defendants No. 8 to 11) contested the suit, relying on a family arrangement deed dated July 5, 1946, to prove their possession and enjoyment of the suit property

During the recording of evidence, the respondents objected to the document’s admissibility, arguing it was an exchange or partition deed that required compulsory registration and stamping

The Trial Court, in its order dated May 17, 2025, held the document inadmissible because it lacked registration and proper stamping, characterizing the deed as a "conveyance"

The petitioners challenged this order via a Misc. Petition under Article 227

The court applied the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, specifically Section 17, regarding compulsorily registrable documents.

Supreme Court’s Larger Bench decision in P. Anjanappa v. A.P. Nanjundappa (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2358), which established that unregistered partition deeds or family settlements are admissible for "collateral purposes" such as proving severance of joint status, nature of possession, and parties' conduct.

Kale v. Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119 and Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa (2019) 6 SCC 409, which held that courts should favor upholding family arrangements to maintain peace and that such documents can serve as corroborative evidence explaining the arrangement and conduct of parties even if unregistered.

The High Court scrutinized the 1946 document and noted it was executed between members of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) regarding joint family properties

The court reasoned that since the properties were joint family assets, each member held a pre-existing right or interest in them

Consequently, the document did not create a new title or interest for the first time; it merely recorded an arrangement for convenience.

Therefore, the Trial Court's classification of the document as a "conveyance" was legally erroneous

Addressing the issue of registration, the court noted that even if the document was viewed as an unregistered partition deed, legal precedents from the Supreme Court permit its admission for collateral purposes

The court found that the Trial Court misdirected its inquiry by focusing solely on the lack of registration rather than the document's utility in explaining separate possession and the history of family conduct

The court held that the document was not a conveyance deed and that its lack of registration did not bar its admission for collateral purposes

The Trial Court was directed to permit the document to be admitted in evidence, with its usage restricted to the collateral purposes defined in P. Anjanappa v. A.P. Nanjundappa