# NANNI BAI AND OTHERS v. GITA BAI - **Citation:** [1959] 1 S.C.R. 479 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1959 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam, SuBBA RAO - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nanni-bai-and-others-v-gita-bai-1674 - **Pages:** 17 ## Headnote Agriculturist, Protection of-Jurisdiction of Special JudgeEx£Cution sale, if binds the legal representative not party to it-Limitation-Mitakshara Law of Partition-Document, if and when must be registered-Admissibility-Sangli State Agriculturist ·Protection Act (I of r936)-lndian Limitation Act (IX of r908), Arts. I2, I34 and r48-lndian Registration Act (Act XV I of r908), ss. r7 and 49. This was an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession on redemption of certain mortgages instituted in the Court of the Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act (1 of 1936). Their case was that the mortgaged properties had been sold at auction and purchased by their father who had sold most of them to other persons more than 12 years before the institution of the suit and as such the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the {Iigh Court of Sangli permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint originally filed so as to include the relief for redemption and remanded the suit. The trial court, thereafter, decreed the suit in part, holding that the claim in respect of portions only of the mortgaged properties was barred by limitatiqn. Both the parties appealed to the High Court of Bombay and the appeals were heard together. The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's appeal holding that Art. 148 and not Art. 134 of the Limitation Act applied. In the result, the plaintiff's suit was decreed in its entirety. Held, that the preliminary objection that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction under the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act to entertain the suit must be overruled. The fixing of 1915 as the date-line by the Act had reference to such reliefs as could be had only by way of reopening of closed transactions ancr could not, therefore, preclude the Special Judge from granting other reliefs in respect of transactions entered into prior to 1915. Nor could it be contended in bar that the plaii;ttiff was bound in the first instance to set aside an auction sale of the mortgaged properties in execution of a money decree in which she was not substituted in place of her deceased fa th er as his true heir and legal representative nor made a party and no controversy was raised QY the parties nor decided by the Court as to who was the true legal representative. The plaintiff was entitled to ignore the sale and the suit was not barred under Art. fZ of the Limitation Act. • • .April r4. I958 Nanni Bai u.ud Others v. Gita Bai Sinha]. 480 SUPREME COUl~T REPORTS [1959]. Malkarju" Bin Shidramappa Pasare v. NaJ'iiari Bi11 Shivappa, (r900) L.R. 27 I.A. 2r6, doubted and distinguished. In order that Art. 134 of the Limitation Act might be attracted to a suit for possession on redemption, it \Vas necessary for the defendant to prove affirmatively that the mortgagee or his succe.ssor-in-i_nterest had transferred a larger interest than was justified by the.mortgage. Where, as in the present case, this was not done, Art. r34 could not apply and the only other article which could apply was Art. r48 of the Limitation Act. ' Under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law partition may be either (r) a severance of the joint status of the coparcenary by mere defining of shares but without specific allotments or (2) partition by allotment of specific properties by metes and bounds according to shares. The latter, if reduced to writing becomes compulsorily registrable under s. r7( r)(b) of the Indian H.egistration Act but the former does not. Consequently, in the present case such unregistered documents as were adduced by the plaintiff for the limited purpose of proving partition in the former sense did not fall \vithin the n1ischief of s. 49 of the .Indian l{egistration 1\ct and \Vere ad1nissible in· evidence. I • CIVIL APPELLATE J·uRISDIOTION: Civil Appeal No. '· 177 of 1954. Appeal fi-om the judgment and decree dated October 9, 1950, of the Bombay High ## Text .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 479 NANNI BAI AND OTHERS v. GITA BAI (B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and SuBBA RAO JJ.) Agriculturist, Protection of-Jurisdiction of Special JudgeEx£Cution sale, if binds the legal representative not party to it-Limitation-Mitakshara Law of Partition-Document, if and when must be registered-Admissibility-Sangli State Agriculturist ·Protection Act (I of r936)-lndian Limitation Act (IX of r908), Arts. I2, I34 and r48-lndian Registration Act (Act XV I of r908), ss. r7 and 49. This was an appeal by the defendants in a suit for possession on redemption of certain mortgages instituted in the Court of the Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act (1 of 1936). Their case was that the mortgaged properties had been sold at auction and purchased by their father who had sold most of them to other persons more than 12 years before the institution of the suit and as such the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the {Iigh Court of Sangli permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint originally filed so as to include the relief for redemption and remanded the suit. The trial court, thereafter, decreed the suit in part, holding that the claim in respect of portions only of the mortgaged properties was barred by limitatiqn. Both the parties appealed to the High Court of Bombay and the appeals were heard together. The High Court dismissed the defendant's appeal and allowed the plaintiff's appeal holding that Art. 148 and not Art. 134 of the Limitation Act applied. In the result, the plaintiff's suit was decreed in its entirety. Held, that the preliminary objection that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction under the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act to entertain the suit must be overruled. The fixing of 1915 as the date-line by the Act had reference to such reliefs as could be had only by way of reopening of closed transactions ancr could not, therefore, preclude the Special Judge from granting other reliefs in respect of transactions entered into prior to 1915. Nor could it be contended in bar that the plaii;ttiff was bound in the first instance to set aside an auction sale of the mortgaged properties in execution of a money decree in which she was not substituted in place of her deceased fa th er as his true heir and legal representative nor made a party and no controversy was raised QY the parties nor decided by the Court as to who was the true legal representative. The plaintiff was entitled to ignore the sale and the suit was not barred under Art. fZ of the Limitation Act. • • .April r4. I958 Nanni Bai u.ud Others v. Gita Bai Sinha]. 480 SUPREME COUl~T REPORTS [1959]. Malkarju" Bin Shidramappa Pasare v. NaJ'iiari Bi11 Shivappa, (r900) L.R. 27 I.A. 2r6, doubted and distinguished. In order that Art. 134 of the Limitation Act might be attracted to a suit for possession on redemption, it \Vas necessary for the defendant to prove affirmatively that the mortgagee or his succe.ssor-in-i_nterest had transferred a larger interest than was justified by the.mortgage. Where, as in the present case, this was not done, Art. r34 could not apply and the only other article which could apply was Art. r48 of the Limitation Act. ' Under the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law partition may be either (r) a severance of the joint status of the coparcenary by mere defining of shares but without specific allotments or (2) partition by allotment of specific properties by metes and bounds according to shares. The latter, if reduced to writing becomes compulsorily registrable under s. r7( r)(b) of the Indian H.egistration Act but the former does not. Consequently, in the present case such unregistered documents as were adduced by the plaintiff for the limited purpose of proving partition in the former sense did not fall \vithin the n1ischief of s. 49 of the .Indian l{egistration 1\ct and \Vere ad1nissible in· evidence. I • CIVIL APPELLATE J·uRISDIOTION: Civil Appeal No. '· 177 of 1954. Appeal fi-om the judgment and decree dated October 9, 1950, of the Bombay High Court in ]i'irstAppeals Nos. 361 & 363 of 1948 from Original Decree arising . out of the judgment ai1d decree dated Jnly 31, 1946, of the Court of Special Tribm1al, Mangalvcdho, in Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938. L. K. Jha., Rwneshwar Nath, J.B. Dadachanji and S. N. Andley, for .the appellant . • K. R. Bengeri and]{. R. Ohaudhari, for the i·ospondent. 1958. April 14. The following .Judgment of tho Comt was delivered by SINHA J.~This is a defendants' appeal by leave granted by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, from the decision of that Court, dated October 9, 1950, in two cross-appeals from the decision of the Special Judge of the Special Tribunal Court at Mangal~edhe, dated J'uly 31, 1946, in Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938. Of the two cross-appeals, the First Appeal No. 361 of 1~48, by the appellants, was dismissed, and the First . . • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 481 Appeal No. 363 of 1948, by the plaintiff, was allowed. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted another suit, being suit No. 1894 of 1937, which was also tried along with Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938. The former suit stands dismissed as a result of the judgment of the High Court, and no appeal has been brought against that judgment to this Court. "The suit out of which this appeal arises (Special Suit No. 1322 of 1938), was, instituted under the provisions of the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act, granting certain' reliefs from indebtedness to agriculturists of that State which was then outside what used to be called "British India". The suit as originally framed, prayed for accounts in respect of two mortgages, though there were really three mortgages, to be described in detail hereinafter, and for possession of the lands comprised in those mortgages. The first defendant filed his written statement on January 6, 1940, contesting the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had no title to the mortgaged properties in view of the events that had happened; that the mortgaged properties_ had been sold at auction and purchased by t,he defendant's father who, thus, became the full owner t-hcreof; and that he ha~ sold most of the properties to other persons who were holding those properties as foll owners. Defendant No. 3 who also represents the original mortgagee, filed a separate written statement supporting the first defendant. Of the defendants who are transferees from the original mortgagees or their heirs, only defendant No. 8 filed his written statement on .March 26, 1940, substantially supporting the fil'st defendant's written statement and adding that he had purchased the bulk of the mortgaged properties after acquisition of foll title by the mortgagees themselves more than 12 years before the institutim1 of the suit, and that, therefore, it was barred by limitation. The trial court di::::missed the suit by it:::: judgment dated November ~6, 1941, with costs. On· appeal by the defeated plaintiff, the Special Bench of the High Court of Sangli State, by its judgment dated June 13, 1944, remanded the suit for a fresh trial after having permitted the plaintiff t~ amend the plaint so afi to • Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai ~Vanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha ]. 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] include the relief for redemption. It appears that during the pendency of the suit after remand, an application was made in February, 1945, for making substitution in place of defendant No. 2 who had died meanwhile, but the application was refused by the Court on the ground that the suit had abated as against that defendant. After re-framing the issues and re-hearing the case, the trial court, by its judgment and decree dated July 31, 1946, dismissed the snit j1S against defendants 6 to 9 who were holding portions of the mortgaged properties by sale-deeds of the years 1919 and 1922, for more than 12 years, as barred by limitation under Art. 134 of the Limitation Act. The Court decreed the suit in respect of the mortgaged portion of R. S. No. 1735, having an area of 16 acres and 21 gunthas, as · agaiust defendant No. 3, and R. S. No. 334 against defendant No. l's heirs. Each party was directed to bear its own costs throughout. From that decision, the defendants preferred a first appeal, being First Appeal No. 361 of 1948, and the plaintiff filed a crossappeal, being First Appeal No. 363 of 1948, in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Both the appeals were heard together along with two other crossa ppeals arising out of the other suit mentioned above. The High Court, by its judgment and decree dated October 9, 1950, dismissed the defendants' appeal No. 361 of 1948, and aI!owed the plaintiff's appeal No. 363 .of 1948, with cos~s, holding that Art. 148 and not Art. 134 of the Limitation Act, applied to the suit, and that, therefore, it was not b:trred by limitation. In the re;rult, the plaintiff's su1t was decreed in its entirety. Hence, this appeal by the defendants. A number of questions of fact and law have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, but before we proceed to deal with them, it i.s convenient to dispose of the. preliminary points in bar of the suit. At · the fore-front of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the suit was outside the jurisdiction of the Special Court created under the Sangli State Agriculturists Protection Act I of H)36. With reference to the provisions of that Act, it was contended that t~e Act authIo; • • • '· • • ' S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 485 judicially determining that controversy, had brought on rec_ord the person who was adjudged to be the true legal representative. The sale was held to be of the p1'operty of the judgrrient-debtor through his l~gal representative, after the adjudication by the court. The Ptivy Council held that though the decision of the coprt on the question as to who was the true legal representative, was, wrong, it \vas a decision given in that litigation which a:ffected the judgment-debtor a~d his true legal representative, unless ·set aside in due co~rse of law. In the present case, there was no such adjudication. From ;the scanty evidence that we have on: this part of the case, it appears that Gundi;the original defendant, had died and had been, without any controversy, substituted by his brother, Sadashiv. The tlourt had not been invited to determine any controversy as between Sadashiv and the true legal representative of Gundi deceased. In execution proceedings, the property was sold as that of Sadashivth¢ substituted. judgment-debtor. It was a money. sale and passed only the right title and interest of Sa\fashiv, if it had any effect at all. Malkarjun's case (supra), therefore, is of no assistance to the appellants. The plaintiff, Gundi's daughter, not being affected in any way by the sale aforesaid, it is not necessary for her to sue for setting aside the sale. She was entitled; as she has done, to ignore those execution proceedings, and to proceed on the assumption, justified in law, that the sale had not affected her inheritance. The suit is, therefore, not barred by Art. 12 of the Limitation Act. • ]t was next contended that even if Art. 12 was not available to the defendants by way of a bar to the suit, the suit was certai_nly barred under Art. 134 of the Limitation Act. Under Art. 134,e the plaintiff has to sue to recover possession of immoveable property mortgaged and, afterwards, transferred by the mortgagee for a valuable consideration,. within 12 years from the date the " transfer becomes known to the plaintiff". On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the usual • Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha ]. Nanni Dai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha J. 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] rule of 60 years' limitation hnder Art. 148 of the Limitation Act, governs the present case. On this part of the case, the defendants suffer from the initial difficulty that the sale-deeds relied upon by them in aid of the plea of limitation under Art. 134, have not been brought on the record of this case, and, therefore, the Court is not in a position to know the exact terms of the sale-deeds. This difficulty, the appellants sought to overcome .by inviting our attention to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the plaint. But those are bald statements giving the reasons why the defendants other than the original mortgagee, were being impleaded as defendants. There is no clear a\·erment in that paragraph of the plaint about the extent of the interest sold by those sale-deeds and other transfern referred to th~rein. The Comt is, therefore, not in a position to find out the true position. Those snJe-deeds themselves were the primary evidence of the interest sold. If those sale-deeds which arc said to be registered documents, were not available for any reasons, certified copies thereof could be adduced as secondary evidence, but no foundation has been laid in tho pleadings for the reception of other evidence which must always be of a very weak character in place of registered documents evidencing those transactions. Article 134 of the Limitation Act contemplates a sale by the mortgagee in excess of his interest as such. The legislature, naturally, treats the possession of such transferees as wrongful, and therefore, adverse to the mortgagor if li"e is aware of the transaction. Hence, the longer period of 60 years for redemption of the mortgaged property in the hands of the mortgagee or his successor-in-interest,, is cut down to the shorter period of 12 years' 'Wrongful possession if the transfer by the mortgagee is in respect of a larger interest than that mortgaged to him. In order, therefore, t-0 attract the operation of Art. 134, the defendant has got affirmatively to prove that the mortgagee or his succeswr-ininterest has transferred a larger interest than justified by the mortgage. lf there is no such proof, the shorter period vnder Art. l34 is not available to the • • t ' • r • f· ' SUPREME COURT REPORTS 487 defendant in a suit for possession after redemption. A good deal of argument was addressed on the question as to upon whom lay the burden to prove the date of the starting point of limitation under that article. It was argued on behalf of the defendants-appellants that as it is a matter within the special knowledge of the plaintiff, the plaint should disclose the date on Which the plaintiff became aware of the transfer. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that it is for the defendants to plead and prove the facts including the date of the knowledge which would attract the bar: of limitation tmder Art. 134. As we are not satisfied, for the reasons given above, that Art. 134 is attracted to the present case, it is not necessary to pronounce upon that.controversy .. It is, thus, clear that if Arts. 12 and 134 of the Limitation Act, do not stand in the way of the plaintiff's right to recover possession, the only other Article which will apply to the suit, is .¥\,rt. 148. It is common ground that if that Article is applied, the suit is well within time. Before dealing with the factual aspects of the case, it is necessary to deal with another plea-in bar of the suit raised on behalf of the appellants. It is coritend- ~d that the suit is bad for defect of parties in so far as ~he heirs of the second defendant are concerned. · It appears from the order dated March 27, 1946, passed by the trial court during the pendency of the suit after remand, that the second defendant died on April 26, 1943, that is to say, while the appeal Lefore the Bombay High. Court was pending in that Court before ~emand. The then appellant who was·the plaintiff, tlid not take steps to bring on record the legal representatives of that defendant. An attempt was made· by the plaintiff later on to get his heirs substituted on the record, but the Court upheld the de~ndants' objection and did not allow substitution to be made. It was, therefore, noted that the appeal which was then !pending in the High Court, had abated as against deftmdant No. 2, and that, the order of remand made a.fter his death and in the absence of his legal representatives, would not affect them. · Therefore, ~t was • • • 1Vanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinh'I ]. I ~Vanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha]. 488 SUPR.EME COURT REPORTS [1959] contended that the whole suit would abate, because, in the absence of the heirs of the deceased defendant No. 2, the suit was imperfectly constituted under 0. 34, r. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That rule requires that " all persons having an interest either in the mortgage-security or in the right of redemption shall be joined as parties ......... " The original mortgagee under the three mortgages, was Kasturchantl Kaniram. The defendant No. 1 has contested this suit by filing a separate written statement of his own as the successor-in-interest of the original mortgagee. It does not appear from the pleadings that the second defendant was a joint mortgagee with the first defendant or his ancestors. The only statement in the plaint in para. 8, with reference to the second defen- . dant, is that the " Lands H.. S. No. 1735 has gmie to the share of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. :J looks after all the transactions of defendant No. 2 and the' shop running under the name of' Kaniram Kasturchand' has gone to the share of defendant No. 3 ". Thus, it is not a case of the first defendant being joint with the other defendants including defendant No. 2 who is not now represented on the record. If defendant No. 2 had any distinct interest, that, on the plaint, appears to be confined to R. S. No. 1735. In the written statement filed on behalf of the third defendant, it is stated in para. 9 that the mortgaged portion of H .. S. No. 1735 which, according to the plaint, was the property of the second defendant, was rea!Iy in possession of the third defendant as owner. It would, thus, appear that even in respect of .that plot, the sectmd defendant had no subsisting interest. This claim of the third defendant is strengthened by the fact that the second defendant did not file any written statement challenging the statement aforesaid of the third defendartt or claiming any interest in that p~ot or any other part of the mortgaged property. The second defendant had remained ex parte · throughout, apparently because he had no interest in the property to be redeemed. In any view of the matter, his heirs are not parties to this suit, and any determination in this suit will not bind them. But it does appear that • • t ' .• S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 489 the second defendant had no subsisting interest, if he had any at· any anterior period, in any portion of the mortgaged property. _J It was also contended that the original defendant .No. 8 died, and in his place defendants Nos. 8a to 8g were substituted. It appears that of the seven persons substituted on the record as the legal represen'taitves of the original defendant No. 8, only defendants 8e,. 8f and 8g were served, and the otiiers, namely, 8a, 81), 8c and 8d were not served. On those facts, it was contended that the suit for redemption was bad in the a'bsence of all the necessary parties. It was sought, at one stage of the arguments, to be argued that the suit had abated against defendant No. 8, and this argurn;ent, in the High Court, was met by the observation that .under 0. XXII, r. 4, Code of Civil Procedure, it was enough to bring on record only some out of the several legal representatives of a deceased party, on the authority of the judgment of the Bornbay High . Court in Mulchand v. Jairamdas (1). But on the facts stated above, there was no ruom for the application of r. 4, 0. XXII of the Code. All the legal representatfves, at any rate, all those persons who were said to be the legal representatives of the deceased defendant No. 8, had been substituted. Thus, the requirements ofjO. XXII had been fulfilled. If, subsequently, some of the heirs, thus substituted, are not served, the question is not one of abatement of the suit or of the appeal, but as to whether the suit or the appeal was competent in _the absence of those persons. It does not appear that the absent parties were really necessary parties to the suit or the appeal in the sense that they -were jointly interested with the others already on the record in any portion of the mortgaged property. In what circumstances they were not served lilr ordered to be struck off from the record, does not clearly appear fro):n the printed ,record before us._ The defendant No. 8e who happens .to be the brother of the original defendant No. 8, has only filed a written statement claimmg that he and his vendor, defendant No. 7, had been in possession for more than 12 years, and that (1) (1934) 37 !lom. L. R. ~88. • • J.lanni Bai and-Others v . Gita Bai Sinha ]. Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha ]. 490 SUPR:ffiM:ffi COURT R:ffiPORTS [1959] the suit was, on th11t count, h11rred by limitation. None of the other defendants who had been brought on the record in place of the original defendant .\'o. 8, has appeared in the suit or in the appeal to contest the claim of"clefendant No. Se that he \Vas in possession of tlrnt portion of the property, namely, (j acres and 32 gunthas ont of R. S. Ko. 242 (old snrvey No. 233). Hence, there was no question of abatement of the stlit or the appeal. The only question which may or may not be ultimately found to be material on a proper investigation, may be whether the decree to be passed in this case, wonld be binding on those who had not been served. For ought we know it may be that they wern not interested in' the plot sought to be redeemed. On these findings, it must be held that the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the defendants in ~ar of the suit, mnst be overruled. Hence, the whole suit cannot be he Id to be incompetent for the reason that the heirs of defrrnlant Ko. 2 have not been brought on the record. Having, thus, disposed of the specific pleas in bar of the suit, we now turn to the contentions bearing on the factual aspects of the controverny. It was contended that the plaintiff who is admittedly the daughter of Gnndi, has not established her tit le to the mortgaged properties. In thi,; connection, it is convenient to set out the essential facts in rebtion to the three mortgage. deeds in question. 'l'he firnt mortgage is dated J nnc 4, 1898, in favour of Kasturchand Kaniram, executed by Gundi, son of Appa, for the sum of Hs. 700, the amount borrowed by him, mortgaging 7 smvey numbers wi~h an aggregate area of 43 acres and 38 gunthas. It was a mortgage with possession for a period of 4 years, with Gundi's two brothers-Sadashiv and Rama-as sureties for 1-he re-payment of the amount borrowed which was the person'11 responsibility of Gundi under the terms of the document. But the property mortgaged is admittedly the ancestral land of the three brothers. 'l'he second mortgage between the same parties in respect of the same properties, bears the date May 25, 1900. It secures a further advance of BJ;. 300 to the .mortgagor, ~he payment of which debt • ' I < \ ,. ' ·f S.C.R; , SUPREME COURT l~EPORTS 491 is again assured by his two brothers-Sadashiv and B.ama-as sureties. The third mortgage-bond is for a {urther advance of Rs. 200 to the moittgagor Gundi, with his brothers aforesaid again figuring as sureties. It would, thus, appear that all the three· mortgages are between the same parties as mortgagor and m.ortgagee, and the two brothers of the mortgagor jpin in executing · the mortgages as sureties, the property given in mortgage belonging to all the three brothers. The total advance of Rs. 1,200 under those three mortgages, was made to the principal debtor, Gundi. It arppears that, of the three brothers, Rama died first, and then Gundi, some time ih 1903, survived by his two daughters-the plaintiff and defendant No. 13. The plaintiff's case is that t)le ~ommon ancestot, Appa, in ·his life-time, had effected a partition amongst his three sons aforesaid, giving them each specific portions of his lands, reserving a portion for the maintenance of his wife. Those transactions are exhibits P-43, P-44, P-45 and P-46, all dated August 31 or September 1, 1892, and, apparently, forming parts of the sa.me transaction. These are formal documents giving details of the lands allotted to each one of the three brothers and to their mother by way of maintenance. The common recital in these d?cuments, is that the executant of the documents, A'ppa, had three sons-Gundi, Sadashiv and Rama, in order of seniority-" who cannot pull on together". T;he document further recites: "Hence, separation having been effected with your consent, (I have) divided in every way and given you the estate, tfie la11d, the assets etc., pertaining to the one-third share. The same are as under. " Then follow the details of ;tl~e properties separately allotted to each of them. The plaintiff's case is that ever since 1~92-the date of: the documents aforesaid-the three brari0,hes of th~ fah1ily had become separate in estate, if not also divided in all respects, and that on the death of Hama, Gundi and his brother Sadashiv inherited his one-third sh~re in equal moieties, that is to say, on the death of their mother and their brother, the two brothers became owners of half a.nd half of the ancesttal Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha ]. Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha ]. 492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ' [1959] property left by Appa who appears to have died soon after the alleged partition. The plaintiff's case further is that the principal mortgagor in all those three transactions aforesaid, was Gundi, and his two bro. thers had joined only as sureties by way of additional security in favour of the mortgagee. It has been contended on the other hand on behalf of the defou. dants-appellants that, in the first instance, the docnments of 1892, referred to tibove, do not evidence an actual partition by metes and bounds, but only represent an arrangement by way of convenience for more efficient and peaceful management of the family property, and that, alternatively, if those documents are claimed to have the efficacy of partition deeds, they are inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The courts below have held that those docmhents are inadmissible in evidence as regular deeds of partition which they purport to be, in view of the provisions of the Registration Act. But those transactions have been used for the collateral purpose of showing that from that time, the three brothers became separate in estate, and evidencing the clear intention on the part of each one of them to live as separated members, each with one-third share in the paternal estate. In this connection, reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants, upon what was alleged to be the subsequent conduct of the three brothers after 1892, as evidenced hy the three mortgage-bonds themselves and the salcdeed-cxhibit D-54-dated June 17, 1909. By the last n1tmed doctiment, Sadashiv purported to sell to Ji'ulchand Kasturchand, son of the original mortgagee, practically the whole of the mortgaged properties, for a sum of Rs. 1,500. The recitals in the sale-deed would (·.ertainly make it out that the three brothers were joint in estate, ancI that the sale-deed was being executed to pay off thei personal loans of Gundi and Rama during the yearn 1900 to Hl03, plus the loans taken by the vendor himself. Finally, the deed proceeds to make the following very significant declaration as t1;i the status of the members of the so-called joint family:- "As I have sold to you my right, title and interest in "the above said lands, neither I nor my heirs and • ,. . S.Q.R. SUPREME COUR.T R.EPOR.TS 493 I executors of my will have any right whatsoever over the said property. As I am the male heir in the joint family by survivorship,· nobody except me has any interest in the aforesaid lands. I have sold to you whatever interest Lhad in the said lands." I • l't was further contended that even strangers to the family treated the brothers as joint in estate as shown b1f the execution proceedings and the sale certificates of the years 1903 to 1907,. whereby Sadashiv was sμbstituted as the sole heir and legal representative of the defendant Gundi, in the suit for nrnney which· resulted in the auction-sale referred to above, of the y 1ear 1907. . · · If the transaction of the year 1892, is admissible in evidence for the purpose for which the docmhent wtts u13ed in the courts below, namely, to prove separation in estat~, i;here is no room for ambiguity, and the position is clear that the three brothers had become separate. :B'1urther recitals in those documents that specinc portions of the ancestral property had been allotted to the three brothers separately, being in the nature of a partition deed by the father in his life-time, and being unregistered, are inadmissible in evidence to prove fmch a partition. But the plaintiff's case does not d~pencl upon proof of actual partition by metes and hounds. In the absence of any ambiguity, 'the later trftnsactions would not be relevant except to show that there was a subse.1uent re-union amongst the htothers, which is no party's case. 1 But it was argued on behalf of the appellants th().£ those documents-exhibits P series, aforesaid-are n~t admissible in evidence even for the limited purpose of! showing separation in estate. The question, there" fore, is whether those documents "purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or exting[\ish, whether in 1 present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hq.ndred rupees and upwards, to or in immoveable property'', within the meaning of s. 17(l)(b) of the Regi~tration Act. No authority has been cited before us! in support of this contention. Pattition in the 63 .. • Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita liai Sinha J. • ~Vanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha]. 494 SUPREME COtJR'r REPOR'rS [1959] JJ1.. itakshara sense may be only a severance of the joint status of the members of the coparcenary, that is to say, what was onc.e a joint title, has become a divided title though there has been no division of any properties by metes and bounds. Partition may also mean what ordinarily is understood by partition amongst co-sharers who may not be members of a Hindu coparcenary. For partition in the fonrler sense, it is not necessary that all the members of the joint family should agree, because it is a matter of individual volition. If a coparcener expresses his individual intention in unequivocal language to separate himself from the rest of the family, that effects a partition, so far as he is concerned, from the rest of the family. By this process, what was a joint tenancy, has been converted into a tenancy in common., For partition in the latter sense of allotting specific properties or parcels to individual coparceners, agreement amongst all the coparceners is absolutely necessary. Such a partition may be effected orally, but if the parties reduce the transaction to a formal document which is intended to be the evidence of the partition, it has the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property is allotted by partition, and is, thus, within the mischief of s. 17(1) (b}, the material portion of which has been quoted above. But partition in the former sense of defining the shares only without specific allotments of property, has no reference to immoveable property. Such a transaction only affects the status of the member or the members who have separated themselves from the rest of the coparcenary. The change of status from a joint member of a coparcenary to a separated member having a defined share in the ancestral property_. may be effected orally or it may be brought about by a document. If the document does not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, that is to say, the partition in the latter sense, it does not come within the purview of s. 17(1) (b), because so long as there has been no partition in that sense, the interest of the separated member continues to extend over the whole joint property as before. Such a transaction • \ ( , ' , ' . . • \ S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 495 qoes not purport or operate to· do any of the things referred to in that section. Hence, in so far as the documents referred to above are evidence of partition only in the former sense, they are not. compulsbrily registrable under s. 17, and would, therefore, not come within the mischief of s. 49 which -prohibits the r~ception into evidence of any document " affecting immoveable property". It must, therefore, be held that those documents have rightly been received in evidence for that limited purpose . Lastly, it was contended that if those documents of tlle year 1892 are admissible to prove separation a:i;nongst the three brothers, then, on the death of one of the three, namely, Rama, and of their mother, the entire ancestral properties including the mortgaged propocties, vested in the two brothers in equal shares. Bbth by the auction-purchase of the year 1906(D-57-D) a11d the sale deed (exhibit D-54 of the year 1909), Sadashiv's moiety share in the mortgaged property, was purchased by Fulchand aforesaid. The plaintiff, therefore, could only claim the other moiety share of her father, Gundi. In our opinim1, there is no answer to this contention because it. is clear upon a proper cohstruction of the three mortgage-bonds and on the _ pll)>intiff's own case that the entire ancestral properties and not only Gundi's share, had been mortgaged. The appeal will, therefore, be allowed to the extent of the half share rightly belonging to SadashiV, and the decree for possession after redemption will be confined to the other half belonging to the plaintiff's father. tn the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. As success between the parties has been divided, they are directed to bear their own costs throughout. Appeal aUowed in part • • • ' x958 Nanni Bai and Others v. Gita Bai Sinha j.