P. Anjanappa (D) vs A.P. Nanjundappa 2025 INSC 1286 - Hindu Law - Registration - Unregistered Partition Deed
Hindu Law - Under Hindu law, severance of joint status can be brought about by an unequivocal declaration reduced to writing or otherwise, and a writing evidencing such disruption is admissible to prove the fact of disruption, the arrangement, and the character of subsequent possession. (Para 8.4) The reality of disruption is tested by a cumulative assessment of conduct that includes separate possession, separate cultivation, separate residence, independent dealings with the lands allotted, and revenue records that consistently reflect such separation. different villages with distinct survey numbers, an insistence on further partition as a precondition to infer disruption misdirects the inquiry, because the determinative question is whether the joint status stood severed and the subsequent enjoyment was separate. (Para 8.6)
Registration - Family Arrangement -Partition Deed- An unregistered partition deed, including the palupatti in the present case, may be relied upon for the limited collateral purposes of proving severance of the joint family status and title, explaining the nature of possession, recording the arrangement made thereunder, and evidencing the parties’ subsequent conduct. (Para 8.2) A family arrangement recorded in writing, when relied upon only to explain how the parties thereafter held and enjoyed the properties, does not require registration for that limited collateral use. (Para 8.5)
Hindu Law - Release Deed - A release by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately to divest his subsisting coparcenary interest; it does not depend for its efficacy on any further act of implementation. Silence in a later, separate memorandum does not undo a concluded, registered relinquishment inter partes, particularly when the deed is produced from proper custody and stands unchallenged in cross-examination. (Para 7.4)
Evidence Law -There is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. (Para 7.3)
Case Info
- Case name: P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1286.
- Coram: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, N.V. Anjaria.
- Judgment date: November 06, 2025.
Caselaws and citations
- Prem Singh v. Birbal, (2006) 5 SCC 353.
- Elumalai v. M. Kamala, (2023) 13 SCC 27.
- Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama, (2018) 15 SCC 130.
- Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao, (2015) 16 SCC 787.
- K.G. Shivalingappa v. G.S. Eswarappa, (2004) 12 SCC 189.
- Thulasidhara v. Narayanappa, (2019) 6 SCC 409.
- Kale v. Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119.
- S. Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai, (1973) 2 SCC 312.
- T.V.R. Subbu Chetty’s Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797.
- Subraya M.N. v. Vittala M.N., (2016) 8 SCC 705; (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 163.
- Kalyani v. Narayanan, 1980 Supp SCC 298.
- Amteshwar Anand v. Virender Mohan Singh, (2006) 1 SCC 148.
- Govind Ram v. Madan Gopal, 72 IA 76; AIR 1945 PC 74.
- Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyum Ali, (1973) 1 SCC 1.
- Latafat Husain v. Hidayat Husain, 1936 SCC OnLine All 315; AIR 1936 All 573.
- Abdul Wahid Khan v. Nuran Bibi, 1884-85 12 IA 91; ILR (1885) 11 Cal 597.
- Hasan Ali v. Nazo, ILR (1889) 11 All 456.
- Abdul Kafoor v. Abdul Razack, 1958 SCC OnLine Mad 129.
- Sir Roland Wilson, Anglo-Muhammadan Law, para 208 (quoted).
Statutes and laws referred
- Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 6 (unamended; notional partition).
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 90; and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 89 (presumption for ancient documents).
- Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17(1)(b), 17(2)(i), 17(2)(vi) (registration requirements and exceptions).
- Stamp law principles (valuation and characterization for partition/family arrangement) referenced in context.
#SupremeCourt reiterates that an unregistered partition deed may be relied upon for the limited collateral purposes of proving severance of the joint family status and title, explaining the nature of possession, recording the arrangement made thereunder, and evidencing the… https://t.co/uZk17ottSb pic.twitter.com/oSMVRK0OoU
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 6, 2025
#SupremeCourt reiterates that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. https://t.co/uZk17ottSb pic.twitter.com/A2mD8CJck7
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) November 6, 2025
