The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of registration under Section 17 and the inadmissibility of unregistered documents under Section 49 of the Registration Act in the context of partition and family arrangements.

JUDGMENT

R. M. Joshi, J. - Second Appeal No. 359 of 2017 is filed by Lalitmohan Dattuprasad Mishra and Second Appeal No. 360 of 2017 is filed by his son Subhashchandra taking exception to judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Reg. Civil Suit No. 276/1981 dated 06/12/2010 and judgment and decree passed in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 23/2011 dated 17/03/2017 confirming decree passed in the suit for partition and possession of the properties.

2. Plaintiffs are sons of original defendant No.1 Dattuprasad Ambaprasad Mishra. They are begotten from his second wife Sonabai to whom he married after death of his first wife Subhadrabai. Defendant No.2 is son of Subhadrabai. As per the case of the plaintiff defendant No.2 is eldest son of Dattuprasad and after his marriage disputes arose between his wife and wife of defendant No.1 and for this reason they started residing separately. It is further stated that some portion of the suit properties was given to the defendant No.1 for his livelihood without any partition by metes and bounds. It is alleged that by taking advantage of said arrangement defendant No.2 got his name mutated in records in respect of those lands and had sold some portion of the land from survey No. 249/3 to defendant No.3 and survey No. 251 to defendant No.5. Plaintiffs claimed 4/6th shares in the suit properties.

3. Defendant No.2 filed written statement contending that there was a family partition between him, defendant No.1 and plaintiffs in the year 1964 and in view of the said partition survey No. 249/3, 260/3, 261/3 and 262/7 came to his share whereas lands survey No. 251, 253, 254 and 255 were allotted to the shares of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. He further contended that on the basis of said partition mutations were sanctioned in respect of those properties. He further averred that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 jointly sold some of the properties. So also defendant No.1 sold the properties in the capacity of being exclusive owner thereof. This fact according to him indicates factum of previous partition. It is further averred that suit is barred by limitation and plea of adverse possession is also raised.

4. The suit was decreed on 06/12/2010 whereby the Trial Court allotted 10/63 share to plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 and defendant No.2. Whereas plaintiff No.4 and LR's of respondent No.1 were allotted 19/63 and 1/63 share respectively in the suit properties. Defendant No.2 preferred Reg. Civil Appeal No. 23/2011 which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 17/03/2017.

5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants states that Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court have committed serious error of law and the facts in not accepting the voluminous evidence regarding the previous partition. According to him partition deed (Exhibit 271) ought to have been treated as the recording of the family arrangement between the parties which did not require registration and both Courts below have erroneously invoked provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act. He further argued that alleged unequal partition cannot become a ground for setting it aside as the lands allotted to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were irrigated lands whereas the lands came to the share of defendant No.2 where not fertile lands. He further raised objection with regard to the refusal of the learned First Appellate Court to permit defendant No.2 to adduce additional evidence in respect of an application which was filed by the plaintiffs on 07/05/2016 i.e. much after the judgment of the learned Trial Court. However, the First Appellate Court has refused to entertain the same on the wrong impression that this document was available during the course of trial and the same was not produced without any justified cause. Thus, according to him this is a fit case to set aside the impugned judgment and decree to remand the matter for decision afresh.

6. Learned counsel for plaintiffs opposed the said contention by stating that there is evidence