Korukonda Chalapathi Rao v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar
Background
The respondent, younger brother of the appellants, sued for declaration of title and eviction over property allotted to him under a 1980 family partition deed. At trial, the appellants sought to rely on an unregistered document called a "Khararunama" (recording an alleged later family settlement) and a receipt, which the trial court allowed to be marked as evidence; the High Court reversed this, holding the documents inadmissible since they were unregistered and unstamped.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined whether a Khararunama that merely records a family arrangement already arrived at between the parties, rather than itself creating or transferring rights in immovable property, requires compulsory registration and stamping to be admissible in evidence. It held that such a document, being a record of a past arrangement, did not need registration or stamping, though it could not independently prove that a transaction requiring registration had legally taken effect. Finding the document fell into this permissible category on the facts, the Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, restoring the trial court's decision to admit the documents into evidence.
Lesson Learnt
A memorandum that simply records a family settlement or arrangement already agreed upon, without itself creating new rights, can be admitted in evidence without registration or stamping, but it cannot substitute for a registered deed where the underlying transaction legally required one.