Jackson, J.

1. This is a suit on a pro-note. The 3rd defendant denied liability on a plea that he was divided from the family. The Small Cause Judge accepted this plea on the evidence of Ex. I. There is oral evidence to the same effect which he has not discussed. The sole question raised by petitioner (plaintiff) is whether Ex. I is acceptable in evidence inasmuch as it is a deed of partition affecting immovable property and not registered.

2. Counter-petitioner raises the usual argument that Ex, I is a mere memorandum. He cites various rulings, but this is a pure question of fact to be decided on a perusal of the actual document. Spencer, J., has made the same observation in Ayyakutti Mankondan v. Periasami Koundan [1916] 30 M.L.J. 404. Exhibit I is described as a list of partition resultant upon the award passed by panchayatdars. It contains the share given to 3rd defendant, mentions three items out of that share made over to Kannusami, is signed by Kannusami and 3rd defendant, and is attested by four witnesses. It is in my opinion, too formal a document to be described as a mere memorandum. It is a deed of partition declaring an interest in the immovable property mentioned