BRITTO N.A., J: - Rule. By consent heard forthwith.

2. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 14-2-2008 of the learned Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Order dated 29-8-2007 of the learned Additional Collector has been dismissed.

3. The controversy is regarding non registration of the final Chart of Partition dated 18-8-2006, in Inventory Proceedings bearing No. 310/2004/ A (new) held upon the death of Smt. Ana Maria Estrocio, wife of Andre Estrocio which are governed by Articles 2064 to 2166 of the Civil Code, 1867 and Articles 1369 to 1447 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1939, (both Portuguese legislations in force in the State of Goa, hereinafter referred to as Civil Code and C.P.C., respectively). The dispute is regarding property described under verba/item No. I, surveyed under No. 249/ I-A of village Taleigao in which the petitioner and his wife had purchased 6.66% share, Sadiq Sheik and his wife had purchased 3.33% share and the remaining 80% share was held by deceased respondent No.2 Clotildes Fernandes. In the licitation held in the said inventory on 10-2-2006, the respondent No. 1 (respondent, for short) has purchased the said property for Rs. 21 crores and "in the provisional Chart of Partition drawn on 27-3-2006 and confirmed on 188-2006 the disputed property having survey No. 249/ I-A has been allotted to the respondent. The respondent took possession of the said property by virtue of letter dated 23-8-2006 given by the. said Smt. Clotildes' Fernandes who was Administrator in the said proceedings and since then is in possession of the same. The respondent applied for a conversion sanad and the same was grimted to him by the Additional Collector by Order dated. 29-8-2007.

4. Against the said final Chart of Partition, the petitioner has filed appeal, being First Appeal No: 289 of 2006 and the same is pending before' this Court. The contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition was also raised by the petitioner at the time of passing the Order dated 14-2-2008 in C.A. No. 294 of 2007 in F.A. No. 289 of 2006. The contention was not answered by this Court as can be seen from para 19 of the said judgment. By the said Order the possession of the respondent of the suit property was held to be illegal and unauthorised. However, the fact remains that both the parties have med S.L.Ps before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said Order dated 14-2-2008. The S.L.P. filed by the petitioner has been admitted. However the Order dated 14-22008 has been stayed. The respondent therefore continues to be in possession of the disputed property and continues with constructions.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that the said Chart of Partition has extinguished petitioner's right of6.66% share to the disputed property and has made the respondent, the owner of the entire property, and -therefore the said Chart of Partition is an instrument which is covered by Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, (Act, for short) and, therefore had to be compulsorily registered, and in the absence of registration it was invalid and therefore could not have been acted upon by the Additional Collector for granting Conversion Sanad dated 1-102007 in view of section 49(a) of the Act. In answer to the said contention, it is the submission of learned Senior Counsel Shri A.N.S. Nadkarni, on behalf of the respondent, that the said Chart of Partition is an order of the Court excepted under Clause (vi) of subsection (2) of the Act, and being so, registration was optional.

6. The petitioner in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of (Fernando Jorge Colaco Vs. State of Goa)', 1991(2) Goa L.T. 11 and (Shri Victorde Graca Pinto and another Vs. Sm1. Lourdes de Graca Pinto e Nazareth and anothe1)2, 1999(3) Bom.C.R. 441(P.B.) : 1999(1) Goa L.T. 167. The petitioner also relied on the