( 1 ) THIS Revision is filed against the order passed in O. S. No. 39/90 on the file of district Munsif, Zaheerabad.

( 2 ) THE brief facts are as follows:- when DW-1 was being examined, two documents purported to be partition deeds dated 24-4-1961 and 27-5-1961 respectively, were sought to be marked. That was resisted by the plaintiff. The partition deed dated 24-4-1961 was engrossed on a stamp paper worth of Rs. 2/ -. Defendants 6 and 7 are one party and defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff are the second party. The plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 were minors. Therefore, the step mother of defendant No. 1 has represented mem in the said document. The stamp duty and penalty were collected on this document on 10-8-1994. There is an endorsement to that effect on the reverse of the document by the Sub-Registrar, Medak of Sangareddy. The question arose is whether that document is admissible in evidence because of non-registration. Partition deed dated 27-5-1961 is with the heading "deed of Partition". This is unstamped and unregistered. This document was executed between defendant No. 6 and defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 represented her minor children i. e. , plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 in that document. This document has referred to the earlier document dated 24-4-1961. This document also shows that five brothers have divided the lands and residential house among themselves into five shares.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif, after going through the contents of these documents held that they are compulsorily registrable under Section 17 (l) (b) of the registration Act after coming to the conclusion that they have the effect of partition;

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order the present Revision is filed.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner submitted that a mere reading of the documents show that they are records of past event. The recital made in the document in respect of payment of Rs. 40/- to Smt. Safia Bee by Gulam Dastagir and Gulam Jilani, executants at SL. No. 1, is only a mere arrangement. The document itself does not create any right. With regard to the payment of Rs. 60/- by Gulam Dastagir and Gulam Jilani also, towards maintenance of M. S. Rafeequinnisa, it is also a mere arrangement. It is the same case in respect of Rs. 500/- to be paid towards marriage expenses of ms. Rafeequinnisa. He further submitted that the recital in para-4 that the matruka properties shall be divided among the executants at SI. Nos. 1 and 2, i. e. , among the five brothers equally, clearly shows that it is only an arrangement. The Matruka properties were not divided by metes and bounds by this document. According to him, the same is the case in respect of document dated 27-5-1961.

( 6 ) IN support of his contention he relied upon a Full Bench judgment of our high Court in Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Govt, of Hyderabad, vs. Smt. Tayyaba Begum. The Full Bench while relying upon the judgment in AIR 1923 Privy Council 50, held that the main test to be applied in these cases is whether the parties regarded the instrument to be a receptacle and appropriate evidence of the transaction whether it was intended to constitute the gift or it was to serve as a record of a post event. If it was a mere memorandum of the things already transacted and did not embody the gift, no registered document was necessary.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in tek Bahadur Bhujil vs. Debi Singh Bhujil and others. In this case the Supreme Court held:"12. Family arrangement as such can be arrived at orally. Its terms may be recorded in writing as a memorandum of what had been agreed upon between the parties. The memorandum need not be prepared for the purpose of being used as a document on which future title of the parties be founded. It is usually prepared as a record of what has been agreed upon so that there be no hazy notions about it in future. It is only when the partie