1. Heard Shri K.C.Sant, learned Counsel appearing for Revision Petitioner and Shri S.D.Dhongade, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. The petitioner – original opponent in Probate Application No.1/2008 before the trial Court is raising exception to the order passed below Exhibit-28 on 13th August, 2010 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amalner. Respondent No.1 herein presented Probate Application before the trial Court requesting for grant of probate in respect of will deed executed by Baburao Zendu Chavan (Dhobi) on 25.04.2011. In the application presented to the trial Court, Respondent No.1 contended that his father had a brother by name Baburao Chavan (Dhobi), who did not have any male successor. Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 herein, being the daughters of deceased Baburao, after solemnization of their marriage, went to reside with their husband. Respondent No.1 herein i.e. probate applicant took care of deceased Baburao during his old age and as a recognition of services rendered by Respondent No.1 herein, deceased Baburao executed will deed on 25.04.2001, thereby bequeathing all his properties to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, as such, presented an application, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate.

3. The application was opposed by petitioner no.1 and Respondent No.2 herein by filing a written statement. The authenticity of the will deed, allegedly executed by deceased Baburao, has been questioned by them.

4. During continuance of the proceedings, Respondent No.1 herein-probate applicant presented his affidavit in the nature of examination-in-Chief and along with his affidavit, he produced several documents including photocopy of the partition deed, allegedly recorded between deceased Baburao and Rama Zendu i.e. father of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 also requested the Court to exhibit the document and admit the same in evidence.

5. An application came to be presented on behalf of the petitioner at Exhibit-28 contending therein that the deed of partition, which is in respect of right, title and interest in the immovable property, valued more than Rs.100/-, is compulsorily required to be registered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and same cannot be received in evidence, as per the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. It is also contended in the application that the document is insufficiently stamped and as such, in view of provisions of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, same is required to be impounded. The petitioner, therefore, requested the trial Court to issue directions to the probate applicant – Respondent No.1 herein to produce original copy of the alleged partition deed dated 27.08.1990 and after receipt of the document, the said document be ordered to be impounded and sent to the District Collector of Stamps for necessary action and till such exercise is completed, hearing of the application be deferred.

6. The application was opposed by Respondent No.1 – probate applicant by presenting his say. It is contended that the application tendered by petitioner herein requesting the Court to grant probate is not founded on the partition deed. It is stated that if the petitioner herein is desirous of challenging the partition deed, she has remedy available for raising challenge to the partition deed by presenting a separate suit. The copy of the document placed on record, being photo copy of the original partition deed, need not be impounded.

7. The trial Court, considering rival contentions raised by the parties, was pleased to reject the application tendered by petitioner herein in view of the order passed on 13.08.2010.

8. It is vehemently contended by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the partition deed, being in respect of creati