In Brief
Two brothers disputed property partition following their father's death. They relied on a 1994 memorandum of a family settlement to prove partition had occurred. The trial court and High Court rejected the document as inadmissible, holding it was an unregistered, inadequately stamped family settlement requiring compulsory registration under the Registration Act. The Supreme Court affirmed that the document was indeed compulsorily registrable and inadmissible for the primary purpose of proving partition. However, the Court partly allowed the appeal, ruling the document could be admitted for collateral purposes (proving severancy of status and possession) if the appellant paid stamp duty and penalty and had the document impounded.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.