JUDGMENT :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the learned trial court whereby the documents submitted by the respondent no. 1 have been permitted to be taken on record. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction on 19.10.2005 before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was subsequently transferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Bhilwara. The prayer clause of the suit, is reproduced hereunder:

^^130 vr% lknj ÁkFkZuk gS fd U;k;ky; Jheku~ }kjk bl vk'k; dh fMØh cgd oknhx.k fo:) Áfroknh lkfnj QjekbZ tkos fd%&

¼v½ fd okni= dh iSjk la[;k&1 esa of.kZr tk;nkn dk 1@2 fgLlk ry eafty ls ysdj r`rh; eafty e; Nr o vklekuh gd rd oknhx.k dks Mets and Bonds ds tfj;s foHkktu djk HkkSfrd dCtk fnyk;k tkosA

¼c½ fd oknhx.k dks Áfroknh ls okni= ds iSjk la[;k&01 esa of.kZr tk;nkn dh ry eafty ij fLFkr iwohZ fn'kk dh nqdku dk fdjk;k tks Áfroknh }kjk olwyk x;k gS mldk fglkc ,oa Áfroknh }kjk la;qDr tk;nkn dh Åij dh lHkh eaftyksa dk mi;ksx miHkksx fd;k tk jgk gS mldh jkf'k crkSj feUl ÁksfQV Áfroknh ls fnyk;k tkosA ,oa fglkc le>k;k tkus dh ÁkFkfed fMØh lkfnj Qjek;k tkosA

¼l½ fd ctfj;s fMØh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk cgd oknhx.k fo:) Áfroknh bl vej dh lkfnj Qjek;h tkos fd okni= dh pj.k la[;k 1 esa of.kZr la;qDr Hkw[k.M o ml ij fufeZr lqnk tk;nkn dks Áfroknh fdlh Hkh Ádkj gLrkUrj u Lo;a djs u vU; ds tfj;s djkosa ,oa u fdlh fofr; laLFkk ds ;gkW ca/kd gh dh tkos rFkk lkFk gh Ádj.k la[;k 20@03 o vuoku vej pUn }kjk cuke ckcqyky cksgjk tks ekuuh; fdjk;k vf/kdj.k tt lkgc HkhyokM+k dh vnkyr esa yfEcr gS] dks fdjk;snkj ckcqyky cksgjk ls [kkyh u djkosa lkFk gh ekuuh; fdjk;k vf/kdj.k tt lkgc HkhyokM+k dks tfj;s xkjfu”kh vkWMZj ls ikcUn Qjek;k tkos fd fookfnr nqdku ds [kkyh djkus dk vokMZ Áek.k i= tkjh ugha Qjekos u Áfroknh nqdku fdjk;s lqnk dk dCtk fdjk;snkj ls ÁkIr djsaA*

2. The defendant respondent no. 1 filed a written statement to the suit, wherein it was submitted that on account of a family settlement arrived between the family members, the property in- dispute came into ownership and possession of the answering defendant. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit on 26.07.2006. The cross-examination on affidavit was started and during the same, the respondent no. 1 defendant submitted a family settlement dated 06.09.1977. The petitioner-plaintiff took an objection upon the filing of the family settlement alleging that the same was not a family settlement but a partition-deed. It was further contended that since the document in-question being a partition-deed was neither properly stamped nor registered, therefore, cannot be on record to be adduced as evidence. It was further contended that the document in-question was not a family settlement but a partition- deed because the contents of it clearly shows the transfer of land from one person to the other and the other person getting right, title and interest in such property and, therefore, the document cannot be said to be a family settlement but a sale-deed. It has also been contended that the property in-dispute is a self acquired property and not a joint family property and, thus, in such circumstances the property in-dispute could be transferred only by way of a partition-deed and not by any other mode.

3. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and on considering various clauses of the document, vide order dated 17.11.2006 arrived at a conclusion that the document in-question being a family settlement does not require registration and, thus, can be taken into evidence. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 17.11.2006 preferred present writ petition.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed grave error of law in coming to the conclusion that the document since being a family settlement does not require registration and, therefore, the same was admissible in evidence;