The main legal point established in the judgment is that a partition deed effecting joint Hindu property requires compulsory registration and cannot be admitted as evidence without registration.

JUDGMENT

J.P.Gupta, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.1.2005 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chhatarpur in Civil Appeal No.70-A/2004 confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2004 passed by I Civil Judge, Class II, Chattarpur in Civil Suit No. 57-A/03.

2. In this case the admitted facts are that the appellant/plaintiff and the original respondent/defendant no. 1 Preetan Singh (now he is dead) are sons of late Durag Singh and the respondents/defendant nos. 2 and 3 are sons of original respondent/defendant no. 1 Preetam Singh and the respondent/defendant Dinesh is son of the plaintiff/appellant.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial Court stating that the plaintiff/appellant and his brother, original defendant/respondent no. 1 Preetam Singh and their father Durag Singh were coparceners and have several lands and on 9.5.1978 amongst them partition had taken place in which land bearing survey no. 2461 area 2.096 hectares, survey no. 2664/3 area 1.173 hectares, survey no. 2664/4 area 1.475 hectares and survey no. 770 area 0.263 hectares situated in village Bagota, Tehsil and District Chhatarpur came in his share. After the partition, he became the sole owner of the lands but his father Durag Singh and his brother Preetam Singh got the aforesaid land further partitioned by the order of the Revenue Court and on the basis of the aforesaid partition order dated 30.1.1991 his father Durag Singh sold out half share of the land bearing Survey No. 2461 in favour of respondents/defendant nos. 2 and 3 and remaining half share in favour of the respondent/defendant no. 4. While the appellant/plaintiff is the sole owner of the aforesaid land survey 2461, on the basis of earlier partition dated 9.5.1978, therefore, he be declared to be owner of the aforesaid land and the order of Revenue Court with regard to partition and the sale deed executed vide sale deed dated 25.6.1992 in favour of respondent nos. 2 to 4 be declared null and void.

4. The suit was contested by respondent nos. 1 to 3 and their stand was that on 9.5.1978, neither oral nor written partition had taken place. The Revenue Court is competent court to pass the order of partition with regard to agricultural land and order has been passed in accordance with law and as per the partition order of the Revenue Court, land bearing Survey No. 2461, area 2.096 hectares would come in share of Durag Singh, therefore, Durag Singh had right to sell out the land. Accordingly, the suit of the appellant is baseless and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties arrived at the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to prove the factum of first partition on 9.5.1978. As the partition was done by written document Exh. P-1 and the same is unregistered document while the registration under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act was must, in absence of the registration under Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document cannot be considered to prove the factum of partition and in view of Section 91 of the evidence Act, the factum of partition cannot be proved by oral evidence on account of the existence of unregistered partition deed, Exh. P-1, therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not the sole owner of the aforesaid disputed land. Consequently, the partition order passed by Revenue Court as well as the sale deed dated 25.6.1992 in favour of the respondent/defendant nos. 2 to 4 are valid.

6. In the light of the aforesaid conclusion, the suit was dismissed. The I Appellate Court was also of the view that the document Exh. P-1 is a partition deed and in absence of the registration, the document cannot be considered as a proof of the partition and, in such circumstances, no oral evidence can be considered, hence the factum of partition has not been proved and on the ba