In Brief
A Hindu undivided family partitioned ancestral property in 1987, allotting a liquor shop to one member (defendant No. 2). In 1990, defendant No. 2 entered an unregistered exchange deed with his brother, swapping the liquor shop for a shoe shop. The sons and grandson of defendant No. 2 challenged the deed as invalid. The Supreme Court held that the allotted property remained ancestral property vis-à-vis defendant No. 2's male descendants, who acquired coparcenary rights upon birth. The unregistered exchange deed was inadmissible under the Registration Act and could not be proved by secondary evidence. The defendant could not invoke the part-performance doctrine (Section 53A) without pleading it. The appeal was dismissed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.