This appeal under section 96,C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-1-2007 passed in O.S.15/03 on the file of Civil Judge(Senior Divn) Muddebihal, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.

2. In fact, The appeal should have been dismissed without a second look, as it is not an appeal in the eye of law, particularly the contents of the memorandum of appeal having no relationship/ proximity to the judgment under appeal,, which is sought to be challenged in this appeal.

3. Sri.Sivakumar.S. Badawadgi, Learned Counsel for the appellant by engrafting another memorandum of appeal said to be relevant to the judgment under appeal, seeks to make the present appeal tenable and for such purpose, has placed before this Court a copy of the memorandum of appeal with the parties and description in the preamble part of memorandum being the same, but the facts and grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal said to be relating to the very judgment under appeal.

4.Sri.HarshavardhanR Malipatil, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent had earlier pointed out this bloomer in the appeal, which would have gone unnoticed unless we had ourselves looked into it. Hence, we had to make efforts to secure the Counsel who had prepared and filed the appeal and in response to it, Learned Counsel for the appellant having made amends for the earlier mistake, and Sri. Harshavardhan R.Malipatil very gracefully not objecting to it, we have received the corrected memorandum of appeal on record.

5. However, on s perusal of the merits of the order under appeal and the grounds urged now in the memorandum of appeal and on hearing the submissions of Sri.Sivakunar.S Badawagi, Learned Counsel for the appellant, we find this is only a fit case for dismissal even at the admission stage without calling for the records of the lower Court, by invoking to the provisions of Rule 11 of Order XI.I of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908, as we find there is absolutely no merit in this appeal, and no ground is made out or urged for interference with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

6. the appellant who was the 1st defendant in the suit who suffered a decree for partition to share family properties along with the plaintiff-his mother and other codefendants 2 to7 (who are his sisters), had put up a defence that the mother and sisters had earlier relinquished their share in the property by executing a document, but it was not registered, and therefore, the plaintiff and other defendants are not entitled for a share.

7. We find the defendant had not placed any material worth of acceptance to substantiate the plea/defence that there was such relinquishment in his favour on the part of the plaintiff, his mother and the dependents, his is sisters.

8. Even otherwise, the 1st defendant having admitted that it was an unregistered deed which in law does not effect, either for gaining or losing rights in immovable property worth more than one hundred rupees, in view of the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act,1908 (For short, the Act),

17. Documents of which registration is compulsory

(1)The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which , and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act,1866 or the Indian Registration Act,1871, or the Indian Registration Act,1877 or this Act came or comes into force, namely:-

(a)xxx

.(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards to or immovable property.

.(c) xxx (d)xxx (e)xxx read with Section 49 of the Act, which reads as under: 49.Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered: No document

required by Section 1732(or by any provision