Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Release Deeds and Recognises 1972 Family Arrangement as Severing Joint Status – Anjanappa v. Nanjundappa (2025)

Case Name: P. Anjanappa (D) by LRs v. A.P. Nanjundappa & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3934 of 2006; 2025 INSC 1286
Date of Judgment/Order: 6 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria

Held: The Supreme Court held that the two registered release deeds dated 09.11.1956 (Ex.D-15) and 14.09.1967 (Ex.D-16) were valid, binding, and operative to completely sever plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 from the joint family and bar their claims to the family estate. The Court further held that the unregistered palupatti dated 11.02.1972 (Ex.D-17) was admissible for collateral purposes and proved severance of joint status and separate possession between plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 from that date onward. The Court held that both the Trial Court and High Court erred in discarding the release deeds on grounds of “not acted upon” and in refusing to recognize the collateral evidentiary value of the palupatti.

Summary: The dispute concerned partition of ancestral and joint family properties across three schedules (A, B, and C). The plaintiffs claimed that all properties were joint family assets liable for partition, while defendant no. 5 asserted that plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 had relinquished their rights through registered release deeds, and that a family arrangement recorded in 1972 effected severance between him and plaintiff no. 1. The Trial Court rejected the release deeds and held that the palupatti was inadmissible. The High Court affirmed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants demonstrated that both release deeds were registered, proved in evidence, supported by consideration, and corroborated by the parties’ long-standing conduct. The Court noted that the palupatti, although unregistered, was admissible to show severance of joint status, independent enjoyment, and separate possession, particularly as post-1972 revenue records, mortgages, independent dealings, and village attestations aligned with its terms. The Court relied on established jurisprudence that family arrangements and severance documents may be looked into for collateral purposes even without registration.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, and substituted a fresh preliminary decree declaring the two registered release deeds as binding and holding the 1972 palupatti admissible for collateral use in proving severance of joint status. It held that the partitionable estate consisted only of Schedule A and items 1 to 16 of Schedule C and reworked the shares accordingly, granting 8/21 each to plaintiff no. 1 and defendant no. 5 and 1/21 each to the five daughters’ branches while excluding plaintiff no. 2 and defendant no. 3 from any share due to their valid releases. The Court further clarified that Schedule B properties and item 17 of Schedule C did not form part of the family hotchpot and continued to be jointly held in equal halves by defendant no. 5 and defendant no. 6. The matter was remitted to the Trial Court for preparation of the final decree in accordance with these findings.