The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of unregistered and unstamped documents, emphasizing the legal principles regarding attestation and the admissibility of evidence under the Indian Stamp Act.

The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.120 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur, is the appellant in the above First Appeal.

2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.120 of 1999 for partition of his 1/2 share in the suit properties. The suit properties consist of two items. Item 1 is a house property and item 2 consists of three different properties of agricultural land in different survey numbers in Keerakollai Village in Thanjavur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

3. The case of the appellant is that he and the defendant are brothers and that they jointly purchased the suit properties under two registered sale deeds. According to the plaintiff, the first item was purchased on 14.10.1970 and the second item was purchased on 20.11.1972 jointly in the name of plaintiff and the defendant. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are in the common enjoyment of both the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff has also stated in the plaint about some of the instances by which the suit properties were dealt with by the parties as their common properties. Though the plaintiff is residing in the first item of suit property and the second defendant is residing in a portion in the second item, the landed properties, according to the plaintiff was under joint cultivation. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant jointly borrowed loan for sinking bore-well in the suit second item by depositing the title deed. Similarly, the property was mortgaged jointly by the plaintiff and defendant on few subsequent occasions indicating that they are always the joint owners of the said properties. Since the defendant was making attempts to sell the suit second item without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent, the plaintiff stated that he was constrained to file the suit for partition.

4. The defendant filed a written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties were purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant. However, the defendant set up a partition on 07.04.1983 and contended that he was allotted the entire second item of suit property. The defendant also pleaded that after partition, there was no common enjoyment by the parties and that the defendant was in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit second item. He also stated that he had improved the suit second item and constructed a house in a portion of suit second item. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff was given lease of the suit second item for a period of five years and the said lease was also reduced into writing on 25.06.1984. Most importantly, the defendant also pleaded that he had given a portion of suit second item to his daughter as Sreedhana by a document where the plaintiff was the attestor. Further, the defendant also prayed in the written statement that he is entitled for compensation for improvements and construction of house in the suit second item, in case, if for any reason, the Court holds against the partition arrangement pleaded by the defendant. Finally, the defendant also pleaded that the suit is bad for partial partition, as the plaintiff had not included the properties situated in Sakkarasamandam, arasingapuram and Vayaloor Villages which were purchased in the name of the plaintiff who is the elder member of the family.

5. The trial Court after framing necessary issues found that the suit properties were jointly purchased by the plaintiff and defendant, as contended by the plaintiff, however, held that there was a partition between the plaintiff and defendant mainly relying upon the unregistered and unstamped partition deed dated 07.04.1983. Though the trial Court held that the document is not admissible in evidence, to prove the rights, strangely, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 SC 1299 held that the document is admissible to prove the division or the intention of coparcener to become divided i