N. Kumar, J.

1. The defendants have preferred these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Trial Court regarding the admissibility of unregistered Panchayath partition deed dated 05.10.2008. It was held that the said document is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and for non-registration.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 4/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Devanahalli for a relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in all the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants. It is her case that they constituted an undivided Hindu Joint Family. The schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants.

3. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the claim. They denied all the plaint allegations except the relationship of the parties. Their specific case is that on 05.10.2008, the defendants and plaintiff have entered into partition deed before the Panchayatdars and effected partition of the properties mutually. The plaintiff though not entitled to any share, on sympathetic grounds, she was given a portion of the land in Sy. No. 199/1 situated at Hunasemarenahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiff accepted the same and is enjoying the said land. Therefore, it was contended that as all the properties are already partitioned under a deed, the suit for partition is maintainable.

4. The Trial Court has framed several issues including issue No. 3, which is as under:

Whether the defendants prove that on 05.10.2008, plaintiff and themselves entered into partition and suit properties were allotted to their share?

5. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate her claim has let in evidence. She has denied the case of the partition pleaded by the defendants. The defendants entered the witness box to substantiate their claim. It is in the course of their evidence, they tried to produce the unregistered Panchayat Parikath dated 05.10.2008 to substantiate their case of partition. The learned counsel for the plaintiff objected for marking the said document on the ground that it is not properly stamped and it is not registered and therefore, it cannot be marked. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the rival contentions and after going through the contents of the said deed, taking note of Sections 34 and 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and also Section 17 of the Registration Act held that the said document is neither duly stamped nor registered. It held that the document is a compulsorily registerable document and therefore, it passed the impugned order impounding the document and also holding that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and non-registeration. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred these writ petitions.

6. The learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners assailing the impugned order contended that the document in question is not a partition deed. Prior to the execution of this deed, parties agreed for partition of the Joint Family Properties. It is after entering into such agreement, they have reduced that agreement into writing and therefore, as no partition had been effected under the deed, the said document is not compulsorily registerable and therefore, the finding of the Court below that it is inadmissible in evidence is erroneous. He also submitted that the document is duly stamped. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 77 and contended that the impugned order runs counter to the said judgment. Indeed the Trial Court has taken into consideration yet another judgment of the Supreme Court, which has dealt with an unregistered deed of sale, which has no application to the facts of this case. For the aforesaid reasons, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set-aside.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plainti