Is a semblance of a claim sufficient for a family member to enter into a family arrangement?

These Second Appeals are directed by the aggrieved fourth defendant in O.S. No.330 of 2001 who is also the plaintiff in O.S. No.361 of 2001, assailing the Common Judgment and Decree dated March 9, 2007 passed in A.S. Nos.65 and 66 of 2006 by 'the Principal District Court, Erode' ['First Appellate Court' for convenience], whereby the Common Judgment and Decree dated April 28, 2006, passed in O.S. Nos.330 and 361 of 2001 by 'the Sub Court, Dharapuram' ['Trial Court' for convenience] was confirmed.

For convenience and clarity, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit in O.S. No.361 of 2001.

One Rama Boyan had four wives. Through his first wife, he had one daughter by name Thayammal alias Veerammal. Through his second wife, he had two daughters - Muthammal and Ramuthai and two sons - Thirumalaisamy and Krishnaraj. His third wife passed away without any issues. Through his fourth wife, he had three daughters - Veerammal, Subbulakshmi and Karumpillai and two sons - Nagaraj (first defendant) and Arumugam (plaintiff). There is no dispute with regard to the above relationship between the parties. 3.1. The Suit currently in O.S. No.361 of 2001 was originally instituted by Arumugam before the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram in O.S. No.298 of 1994 on September 1, 1994 against Nagaraj as sole defendant seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Subsequently, on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction, the said Suit was transferred to the file of the Trial Court and numbered as O.S. No.361 of 2001. However, by an Administrative Order dated February 9, 2004 in A. No.19 of 2004, the District Court, Erode, transferred back the Suit in O.S. No.361 of 2001 to the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram where it was renumbered as O.S. No.157 of 2004. Thereafter, by Order dated April 10, 2004 in Transfer Original Petition No.26 of 2004, the Suit was again transferred by the District Court, Erode to the Trial Court and assigned back O.S. No.361 of 2001. In the meantime, the original sole defendant in O.S. No.330 of 2001 - Nagaraj passed away intestate on November 28, 1998 without filing any written statement and hence, his wife and five children were impleaded as defendants 2 to 7 therein. 3.2. Meanwhile, defendants 3, 4 and 6 therein instituted a Suit viz., O.S. No.330 of 2001 on the file of the Trial Court arraying the defendants 2, 5, 7 and plaintiff [in O.S. No.361 of 2001] as defendants 1 to 4. The relief sought for therein was partition. 3.3. The parties agree on the point that 'the suit properties in O.S. No.330 of 2001' [hereinafter any reference to suit properties shall mean the suit properties in O.S. No.330 of 2001 unless otherwise specified], along with a vacant site measuring 1200 sq. ft. [40 ft. X 30 ft.] was purchased by Rama Boyan from one Muthusamy Nadar vide Sale Deed dated December 30, 1938 [Ex-B.1] as his self-acquired properties. It is undisputed that Rama Boyan sold the aforesaid vacant site of 1200 sq. ft. to one Palani Boyan vide Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968. There is also no dispute with regard to fact that Rama Boyan executed Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968 [Ex-B.2] in the name of Nagaraj in respect of the suit properties. It is also undisputed that on the same day, viz., August 14, 1968, Rama Boyan executed a Sale Deed in favour of Krishnaraj in respect of a contiguous property to the suit properties. CASE OF ARUMUGAM, WHO IS THE PLAINTIFF IN O.S. NO.361 OF 2001

Case of the plaintiff - Arumugam in both the Suits is that, though the Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968 in respect of the suit properties stand in the name of his brother / first defendant - Nagaraj, the plaintiff had also contributed to the purchase thereunder. In the year 1992, when the plaintiff demanded partition, the suit properties were divided vide a Panchayat Partition Agreement between plaintiff - Arumugam and first defendant - Nagaraj in the presence of panchayatdhars. To be noted, their sister - Veerammal and Nagaraj's son - Saravanakumar who is the fifth defendant, have signed as witnesses. As per the said agreement, ‘A’ schedule properties therein were to be allotted in favour of first defendant - Nagaraj and the ‘B’ schedule properties therein were to be allotted in favour of Arumugam. When the first defendant subsequently claimed share in the ‘B’ schedule properties therein, the plaintiff filed O.S. No.361 of 2001 seeking the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the ‘B’ schedule properties therein. Accordingly, he would pray to decree the same while dismissing the Suit for partition in O.S. No.330 of 2001. CASE OF NAGARAJ'S LEGAL HEIRS, WHO ARE DEFENDANTS 2 TO 7 IN O.S. NO.361 OF 2001

Case of defendants 2 to 7 in O.S.No.361 of 2001 is that suit properties were separately purchased by first defendant - Nagaraj under Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968 in his name as his self-acquired properties. The plaintiff never contributed any money for the purchase thereunder as alleged. The plaintiff has no right or title to the suit properties. The alleged Panchayat Partition Agreement is unstamped and unregistered is inadmissible in law. Defendants 2 to 7 deny its execution as well. As the plaintiff - Arumugam laid claim over a portion of suit properties, he was arrayed as fourth defendant in the Partition Suit in O.S. No.330 of 2001. Accordingly, the defendants 2 to 7 would unanimously pray to dismiss O.S. No.361 of 2001 filed for declaration and permanent injunction, and decree the Suit in O.S. No.330 of 2001 filed for partition.

Joint trial was ordered in both the Suits. Evidence was recorded in O.S. No.361 of 2001.

At trial, on the side of the plaintiff - Arumugam, he was examined as P.W.1 and four other witnesses namely Karuppusamy, Veerammal, V.K.Raju and Marimuthu were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5 respectively and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.39 were marked; on the side of the defendants, second defendant - Mylammal was examined as D.W.1; fourth defendant - Jagadeeswari was examined as D.W.2; one Vijayaraghavan was examined as D.W.3 and fifth defendant - Saravanakumar was examined as D.W.4 and Ex.B.1 to Ex-B.25 were marked.

The Trial Court, upon a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and upon hearing either side, concluded that the suit properties are separate and self-acquired properties of Nagaraj. The plaintiff - Arumugam has no pre-existing right over the same. Hence, though the execution of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement is proved, it is invalid and inadmissible. Moreover, Ex-A.1 creates in-praesenti rights and it being unstamped and unregistered, is inadmissible in law. Accordingly, the Trial Court dismissed the Suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S. No.361 of 2001 while decreeing the Suit for partition in O.S. No.330 of 2001 vide its Common Judgment and Decree dated April 28, 2006.

Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff - Arumugam, who is the fourth defendant in O.S. No.330 of 2001, preferred A.S. No.65 of 2006 over O.S. No.330 of 2001 and A.S. No.66 of 2006 over O.S. No.361 of 2001 before the First Appellate Court.

The First Appellate Court, upon hearing the rival submissions and re-appreciating the evidence on record, concurred with the Trial Court's findings that Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement is an inadmissible document and the plaintiff - Arumugam cannot claim title based on an inadmissible document. The First Appellate Court further held that the other documents filed by the plaintiff are not sufficient to establish his alleged title over the suit properties in O.S. No.361 of 2001. Accordingly, the First Appellate Court dismissed both the Appeal Suits and confirmed the Common Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court passed in both Suits.

Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff - Arumugam, who is the appellant in both the Appeal Suits, has preferred these Second Appeals. S.A. No.1441 of 2007 was preferred over A.S. 65 of 2006 and S.A. No.1442 of 2007 was preferred over A.S. 66 of 2006.

These Second Appeals were admitted on December 14, 2007, on the following Substantial Question of Law, common to both the Second Appeals: "Have not the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that Ex.A1 is unstamped and unregistered and therefore inadmissible for any purpose, overlooking the fact that the said document was written in a Rs.10/- stamp paper?"

Mr.T.Murugamanickam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by P.T.Ramadevi, learned Counsel on record, for the appellant in both the Second Appeals, would submit that both the previous Courts i.e., the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, failed to appreciate the fact that the Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968 under Ex-B.2, though stands in the name of first defendant - Nagaraj, was executed by Rama Boyan for the benefit of his sons through fourth wife namely the plaintiff and the first defendant. The factum of execution of Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed is to be seen along with the factum of execution of another even dated Sale Deed executed by Rama Boyan in favour of Krishnaraj, who is one of the two sons of Rama Boyan born through his second wife. The idea behind the execution of these two Sale Deeds, as it could be clearly inferred from the context, was to divide certain self-acquired properties of Rama Boyan between the two sons born through his second wife namely Krishnaraj and Thirumalaisamy one hand and the two sons born through his fourth wife namely plaintiff - Arumugam and first defendant - Nagaraj on the other. Hence, though the Sale Deeds stand in the names of the eldest sons of the respective branches, they were intended to enure to the benefit of the other son in each of those branches as well. In other words, though Ex-B.1 - Sale Deed in respect of the suit properties stands only in the name of first defendant - Nagaraj, the plaintiff - Arumugam was also equally entitled to the same. 13.1. He would further submit that, that is the reason why, the plaintiff and the first defendant equally divided between them the properties covered under Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed, though it stands only in the name of first defendant - Nagaraj, in the presence of panchayatdhars. The said partition was natural; first defendant being eldest son was allotted the Southern portion of suit properties and the plaintiff being the youngest son was allotted the northern portion thereof, in tune with the routine and natural practice. Upon dividing the suit properties equally in the presence of panchayatdhars, Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement was written for the sake of remembrance. The previous Courts miserably failed to appreciate the said fact as well as the fact that Ex-A.1 was acted upon and pursuantly, the plaintiff and the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions, and consequently grossly erred in holding that Ex-A.1 is inadmissible in law. 13.2. Further, he would draw attention of this Court to Ex-A.35 to Ex-A.39 which are the plaint, the Judgment, the Order XXIII Rule 1 Petition filed by fifth defendant - Saravanakumar in I.A. No.1328 of 2001, the Affidavit filed in support thereof, the deposition of said Saravanakumar respectively in O.S. No.119 of 1999 on the file of Trial Court, and would submit that the defendants 2 to 7 who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.119 of 1999 clearly admitted the execution of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement. In fact, the said Suit was filed based on Ex-A.1. Both the previous Court failed to properly appreciate the documents in Ex-A.35 to Ex-A.39. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the Second Appeals, set aside the Judgments and Decrees of the previous Courts and consequently, decree O.S. No.361 of 2001 as prayed for and dismiss O.S. No.330 of 2001. 13.3. In support of his contentions, he would rely on the following authorities:

Per contra, Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents - 1 to 3 in S.A. No.1441 of 2007 who are Respondents - 2, 3 & 5 in S.A. No.1442 of 2007, would submit that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of first defendant - Nagaraj vide Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968, over which his brother / plaintiff - Arumugam has no right or valid claim. Moreover, the plea of the plaintiff is barred by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 [Central Act No.45 of 1988]. 14.1. He would further submit that the defendants deny the execution of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement. It is an admitted fact that the first defendant – Nagaraja was engaged in business in Kerala. The fifth defendant - Saravanakumar pursued his schooling in Kerala and does not know to read Tamil. Without knowing the contents of Ex-A.35 - Plaint, he affixed his signature there. When he later came to know about the contents, he chose to withdraw the said Suit with a liberty to file a fresh Suit on the same subject matter vide I.A. No.1328 of 2001. The said Interlocutory Application was allowed and the said Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. In these circumstances, the documents in Ex-A.35 to Ex-A.39 cannot be put against the defendants. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court rightly decided that Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement being unstamped and unregistered, is not an admissible document in the eyes of law. There is no warrant to interfere with the Judgments and Decrees of the previous Courts. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Second Appeals.

Mr.A.Manoj Kumar, learned Counsel for fifth respondent in S.A. No.1441 of 2007 who is the fourth respondent in S.A. No.1442 of 2007, would adopt the above submissions of Mr.K.Rajendra Prasad. In addition, he would place before this Court the following case laws: S. No. Citation Cause Title 1. (1996) 6 SCC 223 Sawarni -vs- Inder Kaur 2. (2001) 1 CTC 112 A. C. Lakshmipathy -vs- A. M. Chakrapani Reddiar 3. (2008) 8 SCC 564 K. B. Saha and Sons Private Limited -vs- Development Consultant Limited 4. (2009) 2 SCC 532 Avinash Kumar Chauhan -vs- Vijay Krishna Mishra 5. (2014) 2 SCC 269 Union of India -vs- Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited 6. (2015) 16 SCC 787 Yellapu Uma Maheswari -vs- Buddha Jagadheeswararao 7. (2016) 4 SCC 68 Uttam -vs- Saubhag Singh 8. (2020) 4 SCC 659 C. Doddanarayana Reddy (dead) by legal representatives -vs- C. Jayarama Reddy (Dead) by legal Representatives 9. (2020) 19 SCC 57 Nazir Mohamed -vs- J. Kamala 10. 2025:MHC:158 - Rajaraman -vs- Nagarathinam S. No. Citation Cause Title S.A.No.636 of 2017 11. 2026:MHC:911 - A.S.No.225 of 2021 K. Eswaran -vs- S. Janakiraman 12. S.A.476 of 2020 K. Rishkeshavan -vs- S. Perumal 13. 2026:MHC:783 -CRP.No.2167 of 2019 Vetrivel -vs- Narayanasamy (died) 14. 2025:MHC:112 -S.A.No.332 of 2020 Ganesan -vs- Palaniammal (Died) 15. 2025:MHC:1266 - S.A.No.103 of 2021 S. Thangarasu Pillai -vs- S. Arumugam Pillai (Died)

This Court has heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

As stated supra, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties. Though the plaintiff - Arumugam in his plaint in O.S. No.361 of 2001, stated that the suit properties are joint family properties, in his evidence before Court as P.W.1, he categorically admitted that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of Rama Boyan vide Ex-B.1 - Sale Deed dated December 30, 1938 and not ancestral properties. Both the previous Courts have concurrently held that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of Rama Boyan vide Ex-B.1 - Sale Deed and the same needs no interference.

P.W.1 / plaintiff - Arumugam in his evidence further admitted that on August 14, 1968, first defendant - Nagaraj gave consideration to father - Rama Boyan and obtained Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed dated August 14, 1968. His case as it unfurls from his evidence is that he and his brother / first defendant - Nagaraj equally contributed to demolish existing superstructures and build a new houses in the suit properties. His further case is that, thereafter, the plaintiff - Arumugam has demanded partition of the suit properties before panchayatdhars and first defendant - Nagaraj has acceded to the request.

The point that needs for consideration of this Court now is whether Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement is true and valid. In this regard, the plaintiff - Arumugam examined P.W.2 to P.W.5, who are the witnesses (except one witness, namely fifth defendant - Saravanakumar) and scribe to Ex-A.1. P.W.3 is none other than the sister of plaintiff and first defendant, namely Veerammal. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 prove the execution of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement. Their evidence is natural and inspires the confidence of this Court.

Moreover, as it could be seen from Ex-A.35 to Ex-A.39, the defendants 2 to 7 filed an earlier Suit in O.S. No.119 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Dharapuram. The dispute in that Suit, even according to the defendants 2 to 7, was in respect of a staircase in the suit properties common to both, the plaintiff and the first defendant. The relief sought was declaration that the plaintiffs therein namely defendants 2 to 7 are entitled to use said common staircase. The said Suit was filed admitting Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement between plaintiff - Arumugam and first defendant - Nagaraj as well as the pursuant possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. In the said Suit in O.S. No.119 of 1999, a photocopy of Ex-A.1 was also annexed along with the plaint. For ease of reference, Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint in O.S. No.119 of 1999, marked as Ex-A.35, is extracted hereunder:

Trial commenced in O.S. No.119 of 1999 and the fifth defendant - Saravanakumar was examined as P.W.1 therein. The certified copy of the deposition of Saravana Kumar recorded in O.S. No.119 of 1999 has been marked as Ex.A.39, wherein he deposed that he signed as a witness in Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement and also deposed that the original is in the custody of the plaintiff - Arumugam. Relevant portion of his deposition therein reads thus: “... 1992y; jhth brhj;ij vd; jfg;gdhh; fpiuak; bgw;wpUe;jhYk;/ vd; jfg;gdhUk; gpujpthjpa[k; gv{;rhaj;J ghf cld;gof;if vGjpf;bfhz;lhh;fs;. me;j gv{;rhaj;J cld;gof;ifg;go tlg[wk; cs;s tPL gujpthjpf;Fk; bjd;g[wk; cs;s tPL v';fSf;Fk; gphpe;jJ. gv{;rhaj;J ghf cld;gof;ifapy; ehd; rhl;rp ifbahg;gk; bra;Js;nsd;. me;j cld;gof;if gj;jpuk; gjpt[ bra;atpy;iy. me;j gj;jpuk; xnu fhg;gp jhd; vGjg;gl;lJ. mjd; mry; gpujpthjpaplk; cs;sJ. me;j mry; gj;jpuj;ij gpujpthjp ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; m.t.298_94 tHf;fpy; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;. v';fsplk; efy; jhd; cs;sJ. ,e;j jhthtpy; me;j fpiua cld;gof;ifapd; nghl;nlh efiy jhf;fy; bra;Js;nsd;. vd; jfg;gdhh; 1998y; ,we;J nghdhh;.....’’ [Emphasis Supplied by this Court]

Later the said Suit in O.S. No.119 of 1999 was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file a fresh Suit on the same subject matter. To be noted, Ex-A.35 to Ex-A.39 were marked through cross-examination of defendants' side witnesses. Fifth defendant - Saravanakumar in his evidence as D.W.4 in the present matter, offered an explanation that he pursued his studies in Kerala and he cannot read Tamil language; and that he always signs in English and not Tamil [his alleged signature in Ex-A.1 is in Tamil].

So, fifth defendant - Saravanakumar, who in the earlier Suit in O.S. No.119 of 1999 deposed admitting his signature in Ex-A.1, denied the same in his evidence in the present matter citing that he does not know to read Tamil to contend that he was not aware of the contents of Ex-A.1 or the pleadings in the earlier Suit. However, no acceptable evidence has been let in to show that he does not know to read Tamil and it is quite unbelievable that an educated person signed a plaint without being aware of its specific contents.

Be that as it may, even if this Court is to accept that fifth defendant - Saravanakumar signed the plaint marked in Ex-A.35 without being aware of its specific contents, he has entered the witness box and voluntarily deposed before the Court in Tamil that he has signed as a witness in Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement, as it could be seen from Ex-A.39. It is a clear judicial admission. It cannot be easily disregarded. It can only be explained, but there is no explanation, much less satisfactory explanation, in this regard. Therefore, this Court is of the view that denial of his signature in Ex-A.1 in his evidence as D.W.4 in the present matter, is clearly an afterthought.

As stated supra, the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 clearly establish the execution of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement. Further, both the previous Courts have rendered a concurrent finding that the execution of Ex-A.1 is proved by the plaintiff - Arumugam, though they went on to hold that it is inadmissible. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with their finding, to the extent that Ex-A.1's execution is proved.

Coming to the validity and admissibility of Ex-A.1, the previous Courts held that in view of the fact that the plaintiff - Arumugam had no pre-existing rights over the suit properties, he cannot enter into a partition in respect of the same and hence, Ex-A.1 is invalid. Further, they held that Ex-A.1 creating in-praesenti rights, is inadmissible as it is unstamped and unregistered.

At this point, this Court deems fit to reproduce the contents of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement hereunder: gv{;rhaj;J ghf cld;gof;if. ‘’ 1992k; tUlk; ork;gh; khjk; 22 njjp jhuhg[uk; jhYf;fh f!;gh jhuhg[uk; lt[z; Fsj;Jg;g[v{;ir bjUtpy; ,Ue;J jw;nghJ nfus khepyk/; ghyf;fhL khtl;lk;. f!;gh ghyf;fhL. kh';fhtpy; ,Uf;Fk; uhkrhkp Fkhuh; R.ehfuh$;-1 nkw;go jhuhg[uk; lt[z; Fsj;Jg;g[v{;ir bjUtpy; ,Uf;Fk; uhkrhkp Fkhuh; R.MWKfk;-2 Mfpa ehk; ,UtUk; nrh;e;J vGjpitj;Jf;bfhz;l gv{;rhaj;J ghfrhrd cld;gof;if. ekJ jfg;gdhh; uhkrhkp mth;fSf;F Rahh;$pj tifapy; ghj;jpag;gl;oUe;jJk; nkw;goahhplkpUe;J ek; ,UtuJ tUkhdj;ijf; bfhz;L K:j;j rnfhjud; vd;w Kiwapy; ek;kpy; 1yf;fkpl;lth; bgahpy; fpiuak; bgw;w nghjpYk; ek; ,UtUf;Fk; bghJthf ghj;jpag;gl;lJk;/ ek; ,UtuJ bghJr; brytpy; tPLfs; fl;o ehk; ,Jtiu bghJthf mDgtpj;J te;j fPH;f; fhQqk; brhj;Jf;fis ehk; ,J nghy; ,dpa[k; bghJthf mDgtpj;J tu brsfhpag;glhjjhYk; gv{;rhaj;jhh;fs; bra;j igry;go fPH;fhQqk; tpjkhf ghfk; bra;J mtuth;fs; ghf brhj;Jf;fis mtuth; ,d;nw RthjPdk; bra;Jbfhz;nlhk;. ,dp xUth; ghfj;Jf;Fg;gphpe;j brhj;Jf;fisg; bghUj;J kw;w ghf!;jUf;fhtJ mtuJ thhpRf;fSf;fhtJ vt;tpj ghj;jpa rk;ge;jKk; ,y;iy. gpd;dpl;L ehk; gj;jpuj;jpd; K:yk; vGjp gjpt[ bra;Jbfhs;tJ vd;Wk; mJtiu ,e;j cld;gof;ifapd; #uj;Jf;fis kPwp elg;gjpy;iy vd;Wk; mg;go VnjDk; xU ghf!;jh; kPwp ele;J mjdhy; kw;w ghf!;jUf;F VJk; f#;l e#;lk; Vw;gl;lhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;l ghf!;jh; ,e;j cld;gof;ifia jFe;j nfhh;l;oy; jhf;fy; bra;J ,e;j cld;gof;if #uj;Jf;fspd;go jPh;g;g[g; bgw chpik cz;L vd;Wk; mjw;F Vw;gLk; rfybryt[fSf;Fk; kPwp ele;jghf!;jnu bghWg;ghthh; vd;W gv{;rhaj;jhh; Kd;ghf xg;g[f;bfhz;L ,jpy; ifbaGj;J bra;Js;nshk;/” [Emphasis Supplid by this Court]

As regards the validity of Ex-A.1, the claim of the plaintiff - Arumugam as stated above is that he along with his brother / first defendant - Nagaraj jointly contributed and constructed houses in the suit properties demolishing the old superstructures thereon. The judicial admissions made in Exs-A.35 to 39 would clearly show that Ex-A.1 has been acted upon and the plaintiff and the defendants are enjoying their respective portions. Further, the documents in Ex-A.2 to Ex-A.32, which are House Tax Receipts, Water Tax Receipts, Electricity Board Receipts, etc., though they are issued after the Suit, they satisfactorily prove the separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares in the suit properties by the parties. Semblance of claim is sufficient to enter into a agreement/arrangement. The plaintiff and the first defendant are brothers, they are not third parties. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to Kale's Case [cited supra], whereof relevant portion reads thus: "9. Before dealing with the respective contentions put forward by the parties, we would like to discuss in general the effect and value of family arrangements entered into between the parties with a view to resolving disputes once for all. By virtue of a family settlement or arrangement members of a family descending from a common ancestor or a near relation seek to sink their differences and disputes, settle and resolve their conflicting claims or disputed titles once for all in order to buy peace of mind and bring about complete harmony and goodwill in the family. The family arrangements are governed by a special equity peculiar to themselves and would be enforced if honestly made. In this connection, Kerr in his valuable treatise Kerr on Fraud at p. 364 makes the following pertinent observations regarding the nature of the family arrangement which may be extracted thus:

While speaking of validity of Ex-A.1, this Court deems fit to address one another aspect, which is the plea of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Considering the facts and circumstances, especially the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant, and also considering the fact that the plaintiff claims to have contributed to the subsequent construction on the suit properties rather than their purchase, and also in view of the judicial admissions in Ex-A.35 to Ex-A.39, this Court is of the view that the plea of Benami is not sustainable in this case. Moreover, in view of the final decision this Court is to arrive at, the plea of Benami would pale into insignificance.

Moving on to the aspect of admissibility of Ex-A.1, the nomenclature itself viz., Panchayat Partition Agreement (“gv{;rhaj;J ghf cld;gof;if’’)shows that it is an agreement to respect the panchayat partition in respect of the suit properties, whereby it was also agreed to reduce the terms of the said panchayat partition into a legal document and register the same in future; it is not a Partition Deed. The terms contained in Ex-A.1 clearly establish the same. An agreement which merely contemplates a further registered instrument need not necessarily be registered. Further, Ex-A.1 is written on a Rs.10/- Stamp Paper which is sufficient for an agreement on that date as per Schedule I, Art.5(j) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as Amended by TamilNadu State Amendment. Hence, both the previous Courts are not right in holding that Ex-A.1 is an inadmissible document, since it is unstamped and unregistered. The common Substantial Question of Law framed in these Second Appeals is answered accordingly.

Since Ex-A.1 was executed in the year 1992, that is to say, before the commencement of the Registration and other Related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 [Central Act No. 48 of 2001], the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff - Arumugam pursuant to Ex-A.1 would not be harmed in any manner.

Ex-A.1 further provides, if any of the parties fail to act in accordance with terms thereof, the aggrieved party is entitled to approach the Court to enforce the specific terms of Ex-A.1. In other words, Ex-A.1 is a specifically enforceable contract as per law, under the Specific Relief Act, 1963. In these circumstances, the plaintiff's Suit in O.S. No.361 of 2001 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of his share in the suit properties is also not maintainable. The defendants 2 to 7's Suit in O.S. No.330 of 2001 seeking partition in respect of the 'entire' suit properties is also not maintainable. The plaintiff ought to have filed a Suit for specific performance against the first defendant for execution of Registered Partition Deed in terms of the terms recorded in Ex-A.1. Original Suit in O.S. No.361 of 2001 was filed on September 1, 1994, that is to say, within 3 years from the date of Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement [dated December 22, 1992]. Moreover, there is no time period for performance stipulated under Ex-A.1, therefore a Suit for specific performance lies within 3 years from the date of refusal.

Both the previous Courts failed to consider the above aspects, especially the nature of transaction under Ex-A.1, and erred in holding that Ex-A.1 - Panchayat Partition Agreement is inadmissible and invalid. Their Common Judgments and Decrees are liable to set aside to the extent of decreeing the Partition Suit in O.S. No.330 of 2001 as prayed for. As stated supra, only a Specific Performance Suit would lie and hence, both the Original Suits [O.S. No.330 of 2001 and O.S.No.361 of 2001] are dismissed with liberty to the plaintiff - Arumugam to file a fresh Suit for specific performance and other ancillary reliefs as he may desire on the basis of Ex-A.1 within three months from the date of pronouncement of this Judgment. In such a course, the point of limitation shall not be put against the plaintiff - Arumugam, however, he shall file a formal application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to exclude the time period bonafidely spent in the present proceedings.

In view of the decision arrived at by this Court, the other Judgments relied on by the learned Counsels on either side are not of much relevance and need not be discussed.

Resultantly, the Second Appeal in S.A. No.1441 of 2007 is allowed and consequently, O.S. No.330 of 2001 is dismissed. The Second Appeal in S.A. No.1442 of 2007 is dismissed and the Judgment and Decree passed therein dismissing O.S. No.361 of 2001 is confirmed. Liberty is granted in favour of the plaintiff - Arumugam to file a fresh Suit for specific performance and other ancillary reliefs as he may desire on the basis of Ex-A.1 within three months from the date of pronouncement of this Judgment. In such a course, the point of limitation shall not be put against the plaintiff - Arumugam, however, he shall file a formal application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking to exclude the time period bonafidely spent in the present proceedings. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions in both the Second Appeals are closed. 11 / 09 / 2026