Hon'ble TRIVEDI, J.—The challenge in the present petition is the order dt. 18.5.2010, passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Sikar,(hereinafter referred to as the trial court), in civil Suit No. 92/2005, whereby the trial court has held the document namely, the deed of partition dated 6.11.1993, as admissible in evidence, though unregistered and not duly stamped.

2. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants seeking declaration to the effect that the suit property being the property described in Para 2 of the plaint, situated at Piprali Road, Sikar, was purchased from the funds of HUF consisting of the plaintiff and the father of the defendants, and that therefore the plaintiff had one half share therein. The respondent-plaintiff has also prayed for the partition of said property and for the possession of his ½ share and also for permanent injunction in respect of the said property. In the plaint, the respondent-plaintiff has averred interalia that the plaintiff Parshu Ram and late Shri Badri Narain, father of the defendants, were the sons of late Shri Anandi Lal. The disputed property was purchased from the funds of the HUF in the name of Shri Badri Narain, he being the elder brother. According to the respondent-plaintiff, after the death of Shri Badri Narain, his sons i.e. the defendants were trying to disturb the family arrangement of partition made on 6.11.1993, by the parties in presence of Smt. Geeta Devi, mother of the defendants and three other witnesses at Surat (Gujarat). It is further case of the respondent-plaintiff that on the same day the document i.e. the said partition deed dated 6.11.1993, was also executed which was signed by the respective parties and the witnesses, and that the properties mentioned therein were divided amongst the plaintiff and the defendants. According to the respondent-plaintiff the petitioners-defen-dants on 10.9.2005, refused to give one half share in the suit property to the plaintiff as per the partition deed dated 6.11.1993 and hence the suit was filed.

3. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioners-defendants by filing the written statement, denying the allegations and averments made in the plaint, and further contending interalia that the suit property was not the HUF property but was the self acquired property of their father late Shri Badri Narain and, therefore, the respondent-plaintiff did not have any right or share in the said property. The petitioners-defendants also denied to have executed any partition deed dated 6.11.1993, making family settlement as alleged by the plaintiff and further contended that the said document dated 6.11.1993, was concocted one, and even otherwise being unregistered, was inadmissible in evidence and was null and void. In short, the petitioners-defendants urged to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.

4. The trial court after framing the issues from the pleadings of the parties proceeded further with the recording of evidence. During the course of evidence of the respondent-plaintiff,the document i.e. alleged deed of partition dated 6.11.1993, was admitted in evidence by the trial Court as Ex.2. The petitioners-defendants, therefore, objected against the admissibility of the said document in evidence, on the ground that the same was unregistered and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. The trial Court vide the impugned order dated 18.5.2010, rejected the objection of the petitioners and held that the said document dated 6.11.1993, though unregistered was admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. The petitioners-defendants being aggrieved by the said order, has preferred the present petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The learned sr. counsel Mr. R.K. Agarwal, for the petitioners, pressing into service the provisions contained under the Registration Act,1908 and the Indian Stamp Act,1899, (as adapted in Rajasthan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document