Quick Summary: In a property dispute in Erode, the court decided that an unregistered partition document couldn't be used as evidence. The case involved family members arguing over ancestral property.
The case, heard in the High Court of Madras, involved P. Yuvaraj and others against Ramasamy Gounder's family. The main issue was whether a document called Ex. B1 could be used to prove property division. The judgment was delivered on December 15, 2025, by Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete.
Initially, the Principal Subordinate Court in Erode dismissed the request for property division filed by the plaintiffs, saying the document Ex. B1 was valid. However, the II Additional District Court, Erode, reversed this decision on July 6, 2013, stating that Ex. B1 needed to be officially recorded and stamped to be valid.
The plaintiffs, led by P. Yuvaraj, wanted a division of properties, claiming Ex. B1 wasn't valid because it wasn't officially recorded. The defendants, represented by Ramasamy Gounder's family, argued it was just a record of a past division and didn't need official recording. The court found that Ex. B1 was meant to create a new division, making official recording necessary.
"Ex. B1 is conclusively a document intended to effect a present partition."
According to the law, any document that divides property must be officially recorded if the property's value exceeds Rs.100. Ex. B1 wasn't officially recorded or stamped, so it couldn't be used as evidence.
"Once a document purports to effect a division of immovable property of value exceeding Rs.100, registration becomes compulsory."
The High Court confirmed the II Additional District Court's decision, dismissing the appeal. Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete ruled that Ex. B1 was not admissible because it wasn't officially recorded or stamped. The court emphasized that legal requirements must be strictly followed for property documents.
The court decided that the document Ex. B1 could not be used to prove property division because it wasn't officially recorded or stamped. This decision reinforces the need to complete all necessary legal steps in property transactions.
