This revision is directed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicheery dated 211. 2006 passed in O.S.No.334 of 2000, rejecting the documents filed by the revision petitioners.

2. The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners. The respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.334 of 2000 for partition and division of 1/3rd share in the suit property apart from recovery of an amount of Rs.8,000/-towards past mesne profits and also for permanent injunction against the defendants from causing any waste and damage to the properties.

3. The suit is laid on the basis that the father and mother of the plaintiff owned "A" and "B" Schedule properties comprising of houses, shops and vacant sites and they died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as their legal heirs. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have attempted to partition the properties by allotting a small item of property of less value described in "A" schedule to the plaintiff, with the help of local people and panchayatdars, which was not agreed by the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after prolonged negotiation, on 14.04.2000, the defendants have ultimately agreed for an amicable partition of movable and immovable properties described in "A" and "B" schedules. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the defendants have jointly submitted an application on 03.05.2000, for payment of the amount lying in the Pondicherry State Co-operative Bank Limited under the said understanding and the same is still pending with the Bank. For the months of April and May, 2000, the plaintiff and defendants have shared the rental incomes equally. When the plaintiff claimed for division of 1/3rd share, the defendants resisted the same, which resulted in the issuance of legal notice on 29.07.2000. With the said pleadings the plaintiff has filed the suit.

4. The defendants have filed a written statement. According to the defendants, when the dispute arose, the matter was taken to the panchayatdars of local area and they settled the matter between the plaintiff and the defendants by a compromise. As per the compromise arrived at in the presence of the panchayatdars, the plaintiff agreed to take item-1 of "A" schedule property towards her share and to leave other items towards the shares of the defendants. It is the further case of the defendants that as per the said understanding, the agreement for partition was reduced into writing on 21.05.1999 before the panchayatdars and signed by the plaintiff and defendants and they also agreed to register the partition deed in future. The said agreement was signed by the panchayatdars as attesting witnesses. According to the defendants, the plaintiff, having agreed to take the house property, viz., item-1 of "A" schedule property in full satisfaction of her entire claim, is estopped from going back from the said agreement. During the trial of the said suit, the defendants have filed the proof affidavit, in which the defendants wanted to mark a deed of family arrangement, which was objected to by the plaintiff.

5. The learned trial Judge, while deciding about the marking of the said document on the defendants side, has rejected the same on the ground that the family arrangement produced by the defendants is a partition deed and unless it is stamped and registered in accordance with law relating to Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act, the same cannot be admitted as material evidence. It is, as against the said order of the learned trial Judge, the defendants have filed the present revision petition.

6. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the agreement entered on 21.05.1999 in the presence of panchayatdars amounts to recognition of a division already taken place. Relying upon the last paragraph of the said agreement, wherein it is agreed between the parties that the gold jewels and silver utensils belonging