An unregistered partition deed is inadmissible and requires registration to be binding, emphasizing the need for substantiation of partition claims.

JUDGMENT :

Khatim Reza, J.

Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Shivnandan Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Indu Bhushan, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-Ist, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No. 77 of 2005/06 of 2007 whereby the learned lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2005 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-Vth, Gopalganj in Title (Partition) Suit No. 21 of 1993.

3. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court and the respondents herein were defendants in the Partition Suit. The plaintiffs/appellants filed Title (Partition) Suit No. 21 of 1993 for partition of their half share in the property described in the schedules of the plaint.

4. In order to determine the matter in its correct perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate the case of the parties. The plaintiffs/appellants and the defendants/respondents are descendants of the common ancestor, namely, Ramkishun and are related to one another. The genealogy has been admitted by both the sides.

5. The case of the plaintiffs, is that the lands in suit were ancestral property of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. Further case of the plaintiffs is that due to disturbance by the family members in the family there was separation in the year 1970 by both the parties but the ancestral property as well as purchased property was not partitioned by metes and bounds, whereafter, they started cultivating some lands jointly. The property mentioned in Schedule-II of the plaint was purchased from joint nucleus and was in joint possession. It is further pleaded that some of the ancestral property was exchanged and some of the suit property was sold jointly. It is further contended that the defendants started claiming that suit property was partitioned through memorandum of partition which is totally false and there was no partition between the parties and if defendants produce any documents of partition the same is forged as plaintiffs did not participated in any partition. On the basis of pleadings, the plaintiffs/appellants sought relief for partition of half share in the Schedule-I to IV properties.

6. On summons, defendant nos. 1 to 7/defendants Ist set appeared and filed their written statement. Apart from ornamental objection against the pleadings of the plaintiffs/appellants, the defendants Ist set pleaded that entire family property has not been included in the suit land, in as much as, the purchasers have also not been made party to the suit, hence the suit is bad for non- joinder of the party. The suit is also bad for partial partition. The plaintiffs have sold 11 Bigha 10 Katthas land of village- Bhitbharua and other lands of Ajiyapur and Kabilaspur which have not been included in the suit lands of Khata No. 23 of village- Hajiyapur, which belong to others and those are included in the suit land. The lands of Khata No. 17, Plot Nos. 310 and 338 also belongs to other persons. Further case of the defendant-Ist set is that partition has already taken place between the parties by metes and bounds. The purchasers of the parties are in possession of their purchased land in the names of his two sons. The partition b