komala santosh kumar 23 May 2026

Request for legal opinion in partition

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Agricultural land covered under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 1980 stands jointly in the names of:

1. Sri K. Dasharath (Plaintiff/Respondent No.1)

2. Defendant No.1/Appellant.

2. Respondent No.1 was born on 20-01-1961 and was major by the date of Ex.A1 sale deed.

3. Plaintiff filed suit for partition contending that no lawful partition ever took place regarding Ex.A1 property.

4. Defendants/Appellants contended that oral family partition/family settlement took place in the year 1997 and relied upon white paper agreements marked as Ex.B3 and Ex.B4.

5. Appellants contended that:

1. Plaintiff got BSNL employment in lieu of acquisition of 16 guntas land;

2. plaintiff agreed to give two acres land to defendants.

6. However:

1. no acquisition notification,

2. no compensation proceedings,

3. no rehabilitation records,

4. no employment linkage documents
were filed by appellants.

7. Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 possesses official Department of Telecommunications records showing:

1. casual labour service from 1987;

2. regular appointment in 1994.

8. The alleged 1997 white paper agreement refers to “BSNL employment”, whereas BSNL itself was formed only on 01-10-2000.

9. Ex.B3 and Ex.B4:

1. are unregistered,

2. insufficiently stamped,

3. do not clearly identify Sy.No.185/New Sy.No.251,

4. do not contain proper schedule/boundaries.

10. Balaiah had two daughters/legal heirs who were not signatories to the alleged family settlement.

11. During cross-examination:

· D2 admitted he does not remember survey number and sale deed number;

· D2 admitted no BSNL acquisition records were filed;

· D3 admitted no documentary proof regarding alleged partition was filed.

1. PW1 admitted certain possession arrangements regarding extents of land but never specifically admitted lawful partition/extinguishment of Ex.A1 rights.

2. Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 holding that appellants failed to prove lawful prior partition.

3. Appellants have now preferred First Appeal challenging the said Judgment and Decree.

LEGAL ISSUES FOR OPINION

Kindly provide your valuable legal opinion regarding:

1. Whether Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 require compulsory registration.

2. Whether oral partition is sufficiently proved in absence of proper survey details and registered documents.

3. Effect of omission of daughters/legal heirs in family settlement.

4. Effect of mentioning “BSNL” in alleged 1997 document though BSNL came into existence only in 2000.

5. Evidentiary value of appointment orders of Respondent No.1.

6. Whether additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC may be permitted in appeal.

7. Strengths and weaknesses of both parties in First Appeal.

8. Probability of success of appeal.

Hence, I request your valuable legal opinion on the above facts and legal issues

Reply Follow

2 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 23 May 2026

1.The unregistered documents are not enforceable besides the said Documents B2 and 3 are some fabricated documents hence they cannot be relied upon.

2. Oral partition is valid only if the possession aqnd enjoyment of the property subsequent to oral partition is established, here since the plaintiff is claiming that there was no partition happened, the alleged oral partition appers to be illegally created concept for the purpose of some wrongful gains.

3. If the property devolves on all legal heirs of the deceased upon his/her intestate death then the daughters are also entitled to an equal share in the property as per Hindu succession law, hence ommitting the daughters from the family settlement is an illegal act, the daughters are also entitled to a share

4. It is a fruadulently created document hence has no evidentiary value.

5. It can be nullified if it is established that it wascreated for the purpose of this case.

6. An appellate court will not let you adduce (introduce) fresh evidence just because a case went sideways at the trial level. The general rule of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is that the parties to an appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence—whether oral or documentary. However, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC acts as a strict exception to this rule.

7. It depends on how the respondent challenges the grounds of appeal based on the decree he obtained in the trial court in his favor.

8. No predictions, you can rely upon your own advocate because no details are available.

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 24 May 2026

Your case is at trial stage or you are in appeal as at some places you have mentioned about plaintiff / defendant and some where you have referred as appellant/ respondent.

The facts posted involve multiple issues which can be analysed, opined and advised only after its perusal.

It would be appropriate to seek advise of the lawyer engaged by you, who is well aware about facts and circumstances, duty bound to satisfy your question(s).

However, if you have lost faith in your lawyer replace him/ her immediately.