LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 11 September 2026

Is the remedy to enforce a panchayat partition agreement a suit for specific performance and not a suit for partition?

ARUMUGAM v. BHUVANESWARI
SA.1441/2007 · 2026:MHC:3766 · S.A.NO.1441 OF 2007
Coram: Justice R.Sakthivel
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Sch.I Art.5(j) Indian Stamp Act,…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The remedy to enforce a panchayat partition agreement is a suit for specific performance, not a suit for partition.

Yes. The remedy to enforce a panchayat partition agreement is a suit for specific performance, not a suit for partition. The agreement is a specifically enforceable contract, so the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and the suit for partition of the entire suit properties are both not maintainable. (¶32)

Headnote

Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — Sch.I Art.5(j) — Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Panchayat partition agreement — Family arrangement — Registration — Admissibility — Family arrangement — Semblance of a claim — Entitlement to enter into a partition — Held: A member holding a semblance of a claim is entitled to enter into a family arrangement, and a pre-existing title is not a condition of doing so. (¶28) Registration — Agreement contemplating a further registered instrument — Registration not required — Held further: An agreement that records a panchayat partition and contemplates a further registered instrument is not a partition deed and need not be registered. (¶30) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 — Sch.I Art.5(j) — Stamp on an agreement — Ten rupee stamp paper sufficient — Held further: Such an agreement written on a ten rupee stamp paper is sufficiently stamped, and the concurrent finding of inadmissibility cannot stand. (¶30) Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Enforcement of a panchayat partition agreement — Suit for specific performance — Held further: The remedy is a suit for specific performance of a registered partition deed, not a suit for declaration or for partition. Second appeal allowed in part. (¶32, 33)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 32Ex-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.
Acts & Sections
Sch.I Art.5(j) Indian Stamp Act, 1899Specific Relief Act, 1963s.14 Limitation Act, 1963

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ARUMUGAM v. BHUVANESWARI — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is a semblance of a claim sufficient for a family member to enter into a family arrangement?Does an agreement which merely contemplates a further registered instrument require registration?Is a ten rupee stamp paper sufficient for an agreement under Article 5(j) of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections