R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 716 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Rangareddi District, Hyderabad questioning the impugned orders dt. 4-9-1997by which the disputed document dt. 17-2-1983 was not permitted to be marked as evidence as inadmissible on the ground of non-registration.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit seeking the relief of declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents herein contending that the suit property along with some other properties were jointly purchased by them under a registered sale deed dt. 10-9-1979 and all of them continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the said properties, that subsequently there was a partition of those properties effected on 17-2-1983 in the presence of elders and in that partition the present suit properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the other properties fell to the share of the defendants and ever since then the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the properties that fell to their share and that the suit is now filed as their title to the suit properties is being disputed by the defendants. They also contended that at the time of the above said partition on 17-2-1983 the disputed document was executed mentioning the particulars of the abovesaid partition. When the plaintiff was being examined as P. W. 1 and when the abovesaid document, which is described as memorandum of partition dt. 17-2-1993 (sic. 1983) was sought to be marked as evidence, the defendants raised an objection on the ground that it is an unregistered partition deed evidencing partition and as such it is inadmissible in evidence. The lower court by the impugned orders dt. 4-9-1997 upheld the said objection raised by the defendants and did not permit the said document to go into evidence on the ground that it is a partition deed which is compulsorily required to be registered and that inasmuch as it is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. Questioning such orders the present revision is filed by the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) BOTH the Counsel are heard.

( 4 ) IT is now clear from a perusal of the disputed document, a copy of which is enclosed to the present revision petition that the plaintiffs and the respondents, who are alleged to have jointly purchased the present suit properties and some other properties under a registered sale deed dated 10-9-1979, had effected partition of those properties in the presence of elders on 17-2-1983 and that to evidence such partition of the properties, the disputed document was executed between them. It is clear from the terms of the said document that the said document is not a mere memorandum of any partition which was already effected between the parties. On the other hand it is clearly mentioned that the partition of the properties between the parties was effected under that document itself and specific items of properties were allotted to the respective sharers. It is also further mentioned in the said document that the parties to whom specific items of properties were allotted under the document, have become the absolute owners of the properties that were allotted to their respective shares in that partition and they have also taken possession of their respective shares in that partition on that day itself i. e. , on 17-2-1983 which is the date of partition. It is clear from such terms and conditions of the disputed document that the said document of partition has created and declared the rights of the respective parties to the properties that were allotted to their respective shares under that document. Therefore, such a document is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration act, and as it is not so registered, it cannot be admitted in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the Regi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document