JUDGMENT Shiv Charan, J.
1. Present second appeal has been instituted against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.2004, passed by Addl. District Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Jhansi passed in Civil Appeal No. 95/99, Sri Karodi and Anr. v. Dasai and Anr. By the impugned judgment and decree learned appellate court dismissed the appeal of the appellants with costs.
2. The perusal of the judgment of the court below shows that Original Suit No. 130 of 1997, Dasai v. Karodi and Anr. was instituted for declaration to the affect that the sale-deed dated 23.4.97 is null and void and liable to be cancelled. It has been alleged in the plaint that there were three brothers of the plaintiff, namely, Shyam Lal defendant No. 3, Dasai plaintiff and Brij Bhushan. That the disputed property situated at Mohalla Gudari town Ranipur Pargana Mau District Jhansi is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and his brothers. That a partition took place of the disputed house in between the plaintiff and his brothers in the month of September, 1985 and a deed dated 29.9.85 was also executed. Defendant No. 3 also put his signature on the partition deed. That all the brothers are in possession of their share according to the partition. A part of the house was delivered to the defendant No. 3 in the house. But defendant No. 3 with mala fide intention executed a sale-deed on 23.4.97 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 in consideration of Rs. 40,000. That defendant No. 3 was neither the owner nor in possession of the house in dispute hence he was not competent to execute the sale deed. The sale deed was void and ineffective. The defendant appellants contested the suit and filed written statement and denied the contention of the plaint. It has specifically been alleged that the house in question was never partitioned in between the plaintiff and his brothers. That a document signed by Shyam Lal is not a registered document. Hence, the partition deed is not in accordance of law and is not binding on the appellants defendants and the partition deed is a void document. Shyam Lal defendant No. 3 also filed separate written statement and he also admitted that the property in dispute was sold to defendant by the sale-deed. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence before the trial court and trial court after framing issues decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents and a sale-deed dated 23.4.97 executed by Shyam Lal in favour of Karodi and Pyare Lal was set aside. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial court the appellant instituted Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1999, in the Court of District Judge and Addl. District Judge/Special Judge, Jhansi dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 25.2.2004 and against this judgment and decree of the appellate court this instant second appeal has been instituted.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellants Sri Arvlnd Srlvastava and Vivek Shandllya and Sudheer Sandilya advocate for the respondents and perused the entire material on record and as well as the judgment of the courts below.
4. It has mainly been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that the suit was filed for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 23.4.97. That this property in dispute was the self acquired property of Shyam Lal respondent No. 2. It is wrong to allege that the disputed property is a joint property of the parties. He also argued that the courts below placed reliance on partition deed dated 29.9.85. But this partition deed is a waste paper as is unregistered document and according to law a partition deed is required to be compulsorily registered and this partition deed is unregistered deed, hence it cannot be accepted as a partition deed at all. That the defendants appellant proved the title of the Shyam Lal that he got this property from Zamindar and thereafter he constructed the house. That this house was not the joint property of the plaintiff and his other brothers. That in view of the judgment of Allahabad High Court in AIR 1989 All 133 and AIR 1999 All 167, the document is inadmissible. He also cited judgment of High Court of Allahabad in AIR 1980 All 180 and on the basis of the judgments he argued that even for collateral purpose this unregistered partition deed cannot be relied. He cited various other judgments of this Court to supplement of his argument. That the courts below were not justified in discarding the evidence produced by the defendants to prove the title of Shyam Lal defendant No. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondent disputed the argument of learned Counsel for the appellant and further argued that in view of the partition deed dated 29.9.95 the property in dispute was joint property of plaintiff and his brothers. That for collateral purpose the partition deed is admissible. That whether the property in dispute is a Joint property or not this is a collateral purpose and for this purpose the partition deed must be relied. And the courts below considered the entire evidence and circumstances of the case and recorded a finding of fact. That in the present second appeal no substantial question of law is involved and the second appeal cannot be admitted only on the point of fact. And in support of his argument he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. I have considered the argument of learned Counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case. Udnisputedly the plaintiff respondents instituted the suit for cancellation of the sale-deed executed by Shyam Lal defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2, alleging that the property in dispute is a joint family property and defendant No. 3 alone is not competent to execute the sale-deed of the property in favour of the appellants. A material question is to be decided in this case was whether the property is a joint family property of the plaintiff and his brothers on the self acquired property of Shyam Lal defendant No. 3 and brothers of the plaintiff. And the plaintiff was required to prove that the property in dispute is a joint property of the family and to fortify the contention the respondent-plaintiff placed reliance on the partition deed dated 29.9.85. This is an undisputed fact that this partition deed is a unregistered document and this is an admitted and settled position of law that the partition deed is compulsorily registerable. If a document compulsorily registerable and the same has not been registered then no right and title will accrue in favour of the person in whose favour the documents has been executed. Both the learned Counsel for the parties agreed that unregistered deed is admissible only for limited purpose. This is admissible for collateral purpose and what is collateral purpose is also material to be decided. In the present case, this is not very material to be decided that whether any right and title accrued to the parties on the basis of unregistered document regarding allocation of his share of the property. Because for that purpose the partition deed is not admissible. But whether the property is a joint property or self acquired property of Shyam Lal can be decided on the basis of this unregistered deed and it is also material to be decided whether this is a collateral purpose for which unregistered document is admissible. Learned Counsel for the respondent cited a Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kale v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1976 RD 355. The judgment was rendered by three Hon'ble Judges of Hon'ble Apex Court. It has been held in this judgment:
A family arrangement being binding on the parties to the arrangement clearly operates as an estoppel so as to preclude any of the parties who have taken advantage under the agreement from revoking or challenging the same. Even if the family arrangement was not registered it could be used for a collateral purpose, namely, for the purpose of showing the nature and character of possession of the parties in pursuance of the family settlement and also for the purpose of applying the rule of estoppel which flowed from the conduct of the parties who having taken benefit under the settlement keep their mouths shut resile from the settlement.
6. Hence, the above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court shows that a family arrangement reduced into writing and the same was not registered is admissible for collateral purposes. And this family settlement is also relevant for relying the rule of estoppel. In view of this judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court the partition deed dated 29.9.85 is relevant to this extent that the property in dispute was partitioned in between the plaintiff and his brothers. And afterwards the parties to this agreement or deed cannot deny the factum of jointness of the property. It has not been shown by learned Counsel for the appellant that this Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court has been overruled subsequently. And in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court the other judgment cited by learned Counsel for the appellants are not relevant for this purpose. Learned Counsel for the appellants cited a number of rulings:
1. Balkrishna Das Agarwal v. Smt. Radha Devi and Ors. ;
2. Bankey Bihari v. Surya Narain AIR 1999 All 167 : 1998 (3) AWC 1616;
3. Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Ors. ;
4. J.B. Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. 1988 (Supp) SCC 451;
5. Dilbagrai Punjabi v. Sharad Chandra 1988 (Supp) SCC 710;
6. Banarasi Das v. Brij Maharaja Sukhjit Singh and Anr. 1998 (5) SC 138;
7. Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh ; and
8. Neelakantan and Ors. v. Mallika Begum .
The above judgments are of no help to the appellants.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents also argued that in the present appeal no substantial question of law is involved. The finding was recorded on the basis of facts and this Court in second appeal cannot interfere merely in the finding of fact. And in support of his argument cited Chacko and Anr. v. Mahadevan 2007 (3) CCC 335 : 2007 (4) AWC 3577 (SC). It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court:
It may be mentioned that in a first appeal filed under Section 96, C.P.C., the appellate court can go into questions of fact, whereas in a second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C. the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact of the first appellate court, and it is confined only to questions of law. Hence we have to see the judgment of the first appellate court and its findings of fact....
Hence in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court the second appeal can only be admitted if any substantial question of law is involved.
In another judgment in Gurdev Kaur and Ors. v. Kaki and Ors. , Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
It must be clearly understood that the legislative intention was very clear that Legislature never wanted second appeal to become "third trial on facts" or one more dice in the gamble.
8. Hence in view of the judgment. of Hon'ble Apex Court the second appeal must be entertained in the circumstances when any substantial question of law is involved and as I have stated above that in the present case no substantial question of law is involved. Both the courts below recorded the finding of fact. Learned Counsel for the appellant formulated substantial question of law and I have perused these substantial question framed by the appellant's counsel and I am of the opinion that all these points are question of fact and these cannot be called as substantial question of law. It has been established from the partition arrangement dated 29.9.1985 that the property in dispute was joint property of the plaintiff and his brothers and defendant No. 3 Shyam Lal alone was not entitled to execute the sale-deed of the entire house. The share of Shyam Lal in the disputed house is only to the extent of one third. And on the basis of the sale deed the appellants can be co-sharer alongwith other brother*. These appellants stepped into the shoes of the defendant No. 3 and in the circumstances of the case the entire sale deed cannot be adjudged null and void but the sale deed is certainly effective to the extent of one third share of Shyam Lal. The judgment of the appellate court is to be modified to this extent that the appellant shall be sharer in the property in dispute alongwith plaintiff and his brothers to the extent of one third share of Shyam Lal and the entire sale deed cannot be adjudged as null and void because Shyam Lal is the co-sharer with plaintiff and his other brothers and the share of Shyam Lal in the disputed house was to the extent of one third share. Shyam Lal could have not executed the sale deed of entire house and as Shyam Lal has executed the sale deed of entire house hence the sale deed shall be valid to the extent of one third share. It cannot be said that on the basis of the sale deed appellant shall have no share rather the appellant shall be sharer to the extent of one third share and they can file the suit of partition of one third share.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in this case except to this effect that the courts below cancelled the entire sale deed. Whereas the sale deed is perfectly valid to the extent of one third share of Shyam Lal defendant No. 3. With this modification the second appeal is liable to be disposed of at this stage. The second appeal is disposed of finally with the partial modification to the effect that the appellant shall be co-sharer in the property in dispute alongwith plaintiff and his other brothers to the extent of one third share of respondent No. 2.