L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE 1st respondent filed O. S. No. 31 of 2001 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, nalgonda, claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

( 2 ) PETITIONER and respondents No. 2 to 9 figured as defendants therein. The suit was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was a prior partition way back in the year 1957. The trial of the suit was commenced. The evidence on behalf of , the plaintiff-1st respondent is said to have been closed. The petitioner is being examined as D. W. 1. During the course of his evidence, he sought to mark the two documents viz. , the alleged agreement dated 15-7-1957 and alleged award dated 16-8-1957. The 1 st respondent opposed the same on the ground that the documents, if taken on their face value constitute partition deeds and unless registered, cannot be accepted in evidence. Through its order dated 7-8-2003, the trial court has sustained the objection raised by the 1 st respondent. Hence, this Revision Petition by the petitioner.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao submits that the documents referred to above by themselves did not bring about any partition and even if they were not registered they were admissible in evidence. The learned counsel also submits that even if the document is to be treated as a partition deed and not registered, it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. He placed relies upon the judgments of this court reported in1. Muthyalareddy v. Venkatareddy, 2. Kaheeda Moin v. Md. Iqbal Ali, 3. Pallapothu Naga Prasad and others v. Pallapothu Venkata Krishna Rao and others and 4. Pudi Balraju v. Jallu Annapoorna.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Sri K. Mahipathi rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that a perusal of the documents which are sought to be marked, discloses that a partition was directed to be undertaken in terms thereof and as such the documents, or, one of them is nothing but a partition deed. The learned counsel also submits that since it is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. He further submits that when the document did not confer any right of possession or resulted in division of properties by metes and bounds, the question of there being any collateral purposes does not arise.

( 5 ) IN the suit for partition filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner raised a plea of prior partition. He intended to prove and establish his plea on the basis of the two documents referred to above. It is not in dispute that they were neither stamped nor registered. The trial court took the view that the contents of one of the documents dated 16-8-1957 indicate that it is a partition deed and in the absence of registration, it is not admissible in evidence. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has made an attempt to impress unpon this court that the documents cannot be treated as partition deed by itself, the contents of the same disclose that it provides for the extent of shares of various persons and intends to bring about a partition. Under these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the finding of the trial court that the document is partition deed. The admissibility of an unregistered partition deed has been the subject matter of discussion by this court in several cases. A larger Bench of this court in its decision rendered in Muthyalareddy v. Venkatareddy (1st cited supra), held that even an unregistered partition deed can be received in evidence for the collateral purposes. In kaheeda Moin v. Md. Iqbal Ali (2nd cited supra), this court analysed the nature of purposes which can be treated as collateral or otherwise, in the context of partition. It was held therein that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases, viz. , (A) Severance of status, (b) Division of joint property by metes and bounds; and (c) Nature of possession of the various sharers.

( 6 ) PHASES a and c were treated as collat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document