Legal Review and Analysis of P Anjanappa D by LRs vs A P Nanjundappa & Ors 2025 INSC 1286

In-Short

Case: P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs vs. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. (2025 INSC 1286)Registered release deeds effect immediate severance from a coparcenary, and an unregistered partition deed is admissible to prove severance of status and subsequent conduct, not to prove its terms.

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs vs. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1286
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Civil Appeal No.: 3934 of 2006
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice VIKRAM NATH, Hon'ble Mr. Justice SANDEEP MEHTA, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. ANJARIA
Date of Judgment: November 06, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment interprets and applies the following legal provisions:

• Hindu Law:
  Concept of Coparcenary and Joint Family Property: Principles governing rights, severance of status, and partition.
  Doctrine of Factum Valet: The principle that a fact cannot be altered by a hundred texts.

• Indian Registration Act, 1908:
  Section 17(1)(b) & (2): Mandates registration for documents that purport to create or assign rights in immovable property and the exceptions thereto.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 / Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiviyam, 2023:
  Section 90 / Section 89: Pertains to the presumption as to documents thirty years old.

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
  Section 6 (Unamended): Governs the devolution of interest in coparcenary property upon the death of a coparcener prior to the 2005 amendment.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: Legal heirs of P. Anjanappa (Original Defendant No. 5).
  Respondents: A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors. (Original Plaintiffs and other defendants).

• Subject Matter: Appeal against the judgment confirming a preliminary decree for partition of joint family properties.

• Procedural History:
  Trial Court (1994): Decreed the suit for partition, rejecting the defences of prior release deeds and a prior partition.
  High Court (2005): Dismissed the first appeal, affirming the trial court's decree.
  Supreme Court (2025): Allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and substituted a fresh preliminary decree.

4. Core Principle and In-depth Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Validity and Legal Efficacy of Documents in Proving Severance of Joint Family Status

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the lower courts erred in disregarding crucial documentary evidence—namely, registered Release Deeds and an unregistered Partition Memorandum (Palupatti)—that were pivotal to establishing a prior severance of the joint family status and determining the actual composition of the partitionable estate.

Analysis of the Legal Framework and Factual Matrix

The suit was for partition of properties classified into Schedules A (ancestral), B (joint purchase), and C (movables). The appellant (Defendant No. 5) contended that:

• Two brothers (Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3) had severed their ties via registered Release Deeds in 1956 (Ex. D-15) and 1967 (Ex. D-16).

• The remaining coparceners (Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 5) had effected a partition through a Palupatti (Ex. D-17) in 1972.
  The Trial Court and High Court rejected these documents, leading to an erroneous computation of shares.

The Supreme Court's Legal Reasoning and Interpretation

The Supreme Court overturned the concurrent findings of the lower courts, providing a robust legal analysis on three key issues:

I. On the Validity of the Registered Release Deeds (Ex. D-15 & Ex. D-16)

• Presumption of Validity: The Court held that a registered document carries a presumption of valid execution. The burden to rebut this presumption lies on the party challenging it. In this case, the respondents led no credible evidence to rebut the deeds.

• Rejection of "Not Acted Upon" Doctrine: The Supreme Court strongly disapproved the lower courts' reasoning that the release deeds were ineffective because they were "not acted upon." It clarified that a registered release by a coparcener for consideration operates immediately to divest his subsisting coparcenary interest and does not require subsequent acts for its efficacy.

• Estoppel: Relying on Elumalai v. M. Kamala, the Court held that the execution of the release deeds for consideration, coupled with long-standing conduct, created an equitable estoppel, preventing the releasors from now asserting any rights over the joint family property.

II. On the Admissibility of the Unregistered Palupatti (Ex. D-17)

• Collateral Purpose Doctrine: The Court reiterated the well-settled law that an unregistered document purporting to partition property, though inadmissible to prove the terms of the partition itself, is admissible for collateral purposes. These purposes include:
  Proving the severance of joint status.
  Explaining the nature of subsequent possession and enjoyment of the properties by the parties.

• Corroborative Conduct: The Court found overwhelming evidence that the Palupatti was acted upon. This included separate mutation entries in revenue records, separate residences, independent dealings with the allotted properties (including mortgages and sales by Plaintiff No. 1), and the fact that the allotted lands were in different villages. This long course of conduct conclusively proved that the joint status was severed in 1972.

III. Consequential Determination of Shares

Based on its findings, the Supreme Court re-calculated the shares:

• Coparcenary at the time of death (1969): With Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 validly separated via release deeds, the coparcenary consisted only of the father (Pillappa), Plaintiff No. 1, and Defendant No. 5.

• Notional Partition: Upon the father's death, a notional partition gave 1/3rd share each to Plaintiff No. 1, Defendant No. 5, and the father.

• Devolution of Father's Share: The father's 1/3rd share devolved upon his seven children (Plaintiff No. 1, Defendant No. 5, and the five daughters), giving each 1/21st. Plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 3 were excluded due to the release deeds.

• Final Shares: Thus, Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 5 got their 1/3rd (7/21) + 1/21 from their father's share, totaling 8/21st each. Each of the five daughters received 1/21st.

• Schedule B Properties: Were held to be outside the family hotchpot, belonging in equal halves to Defendant No. 5 and Defendant No. 6.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court were set aside. A fresh preliminary decree was passed, declaring the release deeds and the Palupatti valid for establishing severance of status and fixing the shares as 8/21 each for Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 5, and 1/21 for each of the five daughters. The Trial Court was directed to draw a final decree accordingly.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In P. Anjanappa vs. A.P. Nanjundappa (2025 INSC 1286), the Supreme Court held that an unregistered document recording a family arrangement (Palupatti) is admissible in evidence for which of the following purposes?
a) To prove the exact terms of the property division by metes and bounds.
b) To prove the severance of joint status and the nature of subsequent possession.
c) To claim ownership rights based solely on the document.
d) To override the provisions of the Registration Act.

Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, what is the legal effect of a registered release deed executed by a coparcener for consideration?
a) It requires further acts of implementation to become effective.
b) It operates immediately to divest the coparcener's interest, and the plea of "not acted upon" is misconceived.
c) It is only valid if it is mentioned in all subsequent family arrangements.
d) It can be easily challenged without any rebuttal evidence.