B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 38 of 2000 on the file of the learned Junior civil Judge, Narasannapeta is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition directed against the order dated 26th March, 2002 made in o. S. No. 38 of 2000 by the learned Judge overruling the objection raised by the petitioner-plaintiff as to the admissibility of un-registered partition deed dated 19-1-1985 filed by the respondent defendant during the course of cross-examination of PW 1.

( 2 ) DURING the course of cross-examination of PW1, he was confronted with a document dated 19-1-1985. PW1 readily admitted his signature on the said document dated 19-1-1985. The counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, however, raised an objection contending that the said document cannot be marked as the same is insufficiently stamped and is not registered. The learned Judge upon perusal of the recitals of the said document found the same to be a deed of partition. There is no dispute whatsoever that the said deed of partition, which is now sought to be marked by the respondent-defendant, is neither stamped properly nor registered.

( 3 ) THE learned Judge, however, overruled the said objections and held that the said document, though unregistered, can be looked into for the limited purpose of establishing a severance in status though that severance would clearly affect the nature of possession. The learned Judge further found that the said document can be used for the limited and collateral purpose of showing the division of properties between the parties and accordingly held that the document dated 19-1-1985 is admissible for collateral purposes.

( 4 ) THE short question that falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the unstamped and unregistered partition deed dated 19-1-1985 can at all be received into evidence and if so for what purposes?

( 5 ) THE question that falls for consideration is not res Integra. In muthyalareddy v. Venkatareddy AIR 1969 ap 242 (FB) a Full Bench of this Court held that where a partition takes place, the terms of which are incorporated in an unregistered document, that document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked for the terms of the partition. It is in fact the source of title to the property held by each of the erstwhile coparceners. That document, though unregistered, can, however, be looked into for the purpose of establishing a severance in status, though that severance would ultimately affect the nature of the possession held by the members of the separated family who from thence onwards, hold it as co-tenants. That, for a severance in status, all that is required is a communication to the other members of the joint family, of an unequivocal intention to separate. This communication of intention could be done orally or by a notice in writing to the coparceners, or by other means depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. If the intention is expressed by reducing the same to writing such a document, though unregistered, is admissible and can be looked into, as long as it is not the source of title of any of the properties which each of the erstwhile coparceners hold as a result of that partition. (Emphasis is supplied ).

( 6 ) A Division Bench of Madras High court in C. S. Kumaraswami v. A. Gounder, air 1974 Mad. 239, after an elaborate consideration of the matter and referring to the earlier precedents including the judgments of the Privy Council stated the law in the following terms:"a partition in a joint Hindu family may denote either of two things: (i) a division in status as between the members of the coparcenary; and (ii) an actual division of the properties belonging to the joint family by metes and bounds as between the different members of the family. The expression partition has been used indiscriminately to denote either one or the other of the two things. Once a partition of the properties by metes and bounds has taken place, naturally there will be the conse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document