Documents effecting partition that create rights require registration under the Registration Act; unregistered documents are inadmissible in court.

ORDER :

Vijaykumar A. Patil, J.

This petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere in O.S.No.144/2012 found at Annexure-H, allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case."

2. Sri.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and petitioner. In the said suit respondent Nos.1 to 3 also filed a counter-claim that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property and the sale deed executed by the husband of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4 is not binding. It is submitted that DW.1 in his evidence admits the execution of family settlement/panchayat parikath at Annexure-'G' and also admits his father's signature. However, the trial Court considering the objections of the defendants refused to mark the document at Annexure-'G' on the ground that the said document is an unregistered partition deed and it cannot be admitted in the evidence. It is submitted that bare perusal of the document at Annexure-'G' indicates it is merely a reproduction of the partition that has already taken place. It is further submitted that under the Annexure-'G', an already existing partition is just written which is not required to be registered. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a counter-claim denying the partition already arrived and seeking for declaration that they are the owners of entire property measuring 2 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.93 of Anuvanahalli Village, Shivani Hobli, Tarikere Taluk. Hence, at least for collateral purpose the document is required to be marked to prove the severance of status and the possession. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama , [ (2018) 15 SCC 130 ]. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the document which the petitioner intends to produce clearly indicates that on the said date the partition has been effected between the parties and by virtue of the said document, right has been created. Hence, it is a compulsorily registrable document and non-registration of the said document would attract Section 49 of the REGISTRATION ACT , 1908 (for short 'the Act'). In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Singh and Others v. Zile Singh and Others , AIR 1988 SC 881 and contends that the document in question is a partition deed which creates right in favour of the parties on the said date, which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions advanced on the both sides.

5. The pleading and material on record indicate th