JUDGMENT

1. This is a case in which we regret we have to allow the appeal. The facts are that the plaintiff filed a plaint alleging that he was entitled to a certain house owned and possessed by him. He gave no details of his title but it happened that when he went into the witness-box to prove his title and to prove the acts of encroachment which, as he said, gave him a right against the defendant, he asserted, no doubt truly enough, that his title rested on a partition. He produced a document which purported to be a deed of partition. It was noticed that it was neither stamped nor registered, and the learned Munsif quite properly refused to receive it in evidence. Unfortunately, then, the Munsif was persuaded to allow oral evidence to be given not only of the bare fact that there had been a partition which would have been unobjectionable but also of the further fact that in the partition his house fell to the share of the plaintiff. The Munsif then decided the matter on the merits and gave the plaintiff a decree and that decree was affirmed by the lower Appellate Court again on the merits. On the hearing of that appeal it did not occur to anybody to take the objection that the Mun