The Supreme Court held that unregistered partition deeds can be used collaterally to prove severance of joint family status and subsequent separate possession. Valid registered release deeds by coparceners are immediately effective to sever their interest, not contingent on being “acted upon,” and can create an equitable estoppel against future claims.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involves a partition suit concerning the joint family property of Pillappa, who died in 1969. The plaintiffs, his sons and daughters, sought division of Schedule A properties (ancestral) and Schedule B properties (purchased jointly in the names of defendant no. 5, a son, and defendant no. 6, a son-in-law). Defendant no. 5 contested, claiming a prior partition between him and plaintiff no. 1 in 1972 via an unregistered family settlement (‘palupatti’), and that Schedule B was his self-acquisition. He also relied on registered release deeds from 1956 and 1967, executed by plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 (another son) respectively, purportedly relinquishing their rights in the family estate. The Trial Court and High Court decreed the suit, rejecting the defence of partition and the efficacy of the release deeds, and included all siblings in the share calculation. The legal heirs of defendant no. 5 appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging these findings and the computation of shares.
Procedural History:
The suit for partition and separate possession was initially filed in 1987 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree in favor of the plaintiffs on August 19, 1994. Defendant no. 5 appealed this decree before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Regular First Appeal No. 750 of 1994. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court’s judgment on August 30, 2005. Subsequently, the legal heirs of defendant no. 5 filed a civil appeal before the Supreme Court of India, which culminated in the present judgment delivered on November 6, 2025, allowing the appeal and setting aside the decrees of the courts below.
READ ALSO:“Nothing Short of Harassment”: Supreme Court Allows Man to Rebuild Old House, Imposes ₹10 Lakh Fine on SDMC
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made key observations on three legal issues. First, it held the registered release deeds were valid and immediately effective to sever the executants from the coparcenary, creating an equitable estoppel against future claims, and their efficacy did not depend on being “acted upon.” Second, it ruled that an unregistered family settlement or partition deed (palupatti) is admissible for collateral purposes, such as proving the severance of joint family status and the nature of subsequent separate possession and enjoyment by the parties. Third, applying these findings, the Court recalculated the shares, excluding the released coparceners and properties acquired after the severance of status, and safeguarded the independent co-ownership rights of a non-family member in jointly purchased property.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of the lower courts. It declared the registered release deeds valid and binding, and admitted the unregistered family settlement for collateral purposes to establish severance of joint status from 1972. A fresh preliminary decree was substituted, fixing the shares in the partitionable pool as 8/21 each for plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5, and 1/21 for each of the five daughters’ branches, while excluding the released coparceners. Schedule B and a related item were held in equal halves by defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6, outside the family pool. The case was remitted to the Trial Court to draw a final decree accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: P. Anjanapapa (D) By LRs vs. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. CITATION: 2025 INSC 1286 Appeal Number: Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2006 Date of Judgement: November 06, 2025 Judges/Justices: Justice Vikram Nath, & Justice Sandeep Mehta & Justice N.V. Anjaria
Download The Judgement Here