ORDER :

(1) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

“(a) Writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost; and

(b) Impugned order passed by learned trial Court (Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara) dated 19.01.2021 (Annexure P/7) passed in Civil Suit No.19/2015 (Smt. Chandralekha & Anr. Vs. Harish Joshi & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside; and

(c) Application dated 01.06.2019 (Annexure P/5) may kindly be allowed as prayed and Document in question, may kindly be ordered to be removed from record;

(d) During the pendency of this writ petition further proceedings in Civil Suit No.19/2015 C.O. (Smt. Chandralaka & Anr. Vs. Harish Joshi & Ors.) pending before learned Trial Court (Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara) may kindly be stayed;

(e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

(2) The facts apropos to the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit on 07.04.2015 before the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Court below’) for partition and perpetual injunction contending therein that Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi [father of plaintiffs-petitioners and defendants-respondents Nos.1 and 2 and one Satish Joshi (deceased) whose legal representatives are respondents Nos.3 to 6] was having a house situated near Session Court, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit premises’).

Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi purchased the suit premises by registered sale-deed on 19.10.1946 and thereafter constructed a house thereon. Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi expired in the year 1998 and his wife expired in the year 2014. It is contended that the plaintiffs-petitioners are the legal heirs of Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi and are having equal share in the suit property but in spite of the demand, the suit property was not partitioned, therefore, the suit was filed for partition by metes and bounds.

(3) The defendants-respondents filed their written statement while denying the allegations made in the plaint. It is averred that the suit premises were purchased by Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi and on 21.11.1982, he partitioned the said property in three parts in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Shri Satish Joshi, whose share now vests in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 6.

(4) It is also contended in the written statement that on 24.03.1990, Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi executed a ‘Will’ (Annex.P/3) and partitioned the suit property in four parts ‘v’, ‘c’, ‘l’ and ‘n’, respectively in favour of Satish Joshi (deceased) i.e. in favour of respondents Nos.3 to 6, Harish Joshi – respondent No.1, Vishwanath Joshi – respondent No.2 and Smt. Manjula Joshi (wife of Shri Nareshwar Lal Joshi). It is submitted that thereafter on 20.08.1992, Shri Nateshwar Lal Joshi executed a memorandum of family settlement (Annex.P/4) and while accepting the factum of execution of ‘Will’, part ‘n’, given in the share of Smt. Manjula Joshi, was merged in the rest of the property and the whole property was given in the share of three brothers, i.e. Satish Joshi, Harish Joshi and Vishwanath Joshi. It is also averred that the petitioners-plaintiffs were not having any right or title in the suit property and thus, the suit property is not entitled to be partitioned by metes and bounds.

(5) During the cross-examination of petitioner No.1 Chandrakala, the defendants submitted the letter of memorandum dated 20.08.1992 for exhibiting it as evidence to which the petitioners-plaintiffs objected and filed an application dated 01.06.2019 (Annex.P/5) under Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 on the ground that it is not a registered document and, therefore, cannot be tendered as evidence. The respondents-defendants filed reply to the said application and submitted that the document in question is not required to be