1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri. J. Venkateswara Reddy and learned counsel for second respondent Sri. M. Rama Krishna.

2. Petitioner (plaintiff) instituted O.S. No. 924 of 2012 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Warangal praying to grant declaration of title and delivery of possession. At the stage of defendants' evidence, defendants sought to mark document dated 17.10.1985 (Ex. B9) and document dated 7.12.1992 (no document number is shown) which is a map disclosing share of the property. Plaintiff raised objection on admissibility of those two documents. It was contended that said documents are not properly stamped and cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose as per Section 49 of the Registration Act.

3. On the contrary, the defendants contended that document dated 17.10.1985 is only an agreement executed on the same day of registered sale deed indicating respective shares in the property purchased by them and that it need not compulsorily be registered. It was further contended that document dated 7.12.1992 is only a map disclosing share of the property.

4. The Court below over ruled the objection of petitioner against both documents. The Court below held that no new rights are created or extinguished under document dated 17.10.1985 and it should be taken as an agreement apportioning the share of property already purchased under registered sale deed document No. 2132/1985 dated 17.10.1985 and it can be received in evidence after it is impounded as per provisions of Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act. On document dated 7.12.1992, the Court below held that said document is only a map disclosing the share of property of plaintiff and it is not liable for stamp duty and does not require registration.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff preferred this revision.

6.1 Learned counsel for petitioner Sri. Venkateshwar Reddy contended that documents dated 17.10.1985 and 7.12.1992 are unregistered documents and cannot be admitted in evidence. Both documents reflect partition of suit schedule property. A deed of partition is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of Indian Registration Act, 1908 and unregistered documents are not admissible in evidence. Document dated 17.10.1985 is an agreement and as on the date of its execution plaintiff was minor and the said document is void.

6.2. It is contended that both documents are not admissible in evidence even for collateral purposes as they are not registered.

6.3. Sri. Venkateswar Reddy contended that Court below grossly erred in not appreciating that in both documents what is shown is apportionment of respective shares and therefore are partition deeds.

6.4. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on decision of this Court in Rachakonda Ramakoteshwara Rao vs. Manohar Fuel Centre, 2003 (2) ALD 638 and decision of Supreme Court in Yellupu Uma Maheshwari vs. Budda Jagadheeswara Rao, 2016 (1) L.S. 26 (SC).

7.1. Sri. M. Rama Krishna, learned counsel appearing for second respondent, contended that the suit schedule property is part of property jointly purchased by plaintiff and defendants. As the sale deed did not reflect respective shares, on the same day, they have written down on a stamp paper the respective shares on the property purchased and the same is also reflected in the map. He therefore submitted that both documents are not required to be registered and are admissible in evidence.

7.2. He would further submit that at any rate these documents can be relied on for collateral purposes to establish that there was an understanding on respective extents of property purchased by them and therefore the Court below has rightly over ruled the objection.

7.3. Learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Nalamuru Nadipi Subbanna vs. Kataru Chennamma, 2002 (4) ALD 859 and Pudi Balraju vs. Jallu Annapoorna, 2003 (3) LS 154.

8. It is not in dispute that the sale deed dated 17.10.1985 does not deal with r