1. Plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Maheshwar.

2. Facts of the case in short are as under :

The land bearing Survey No.8 (Area 3.946 hectares) of Village Akhipura Tahsil Maheshwar was owned by Late Venkat Rao. Venkat Rao was having two sons namely Mishrilal and Bahadurlal. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Mishrilal and defendants No.1 (a) to (e) are legal heirs of Bahadurlal who died during pendency of the suit. That Late Bahadurlal sold the land Survey No.8 (Area 3.946 hectares) to respondent No.2 by sale deed dated 20.10.2008 which gave cause of action to the plaintiffs to file the Civil Suit seeking relief that the sale deed dated 20.10.2008 be declared void and the defendants be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to interfere into his peaceful possession.

3. After notice the defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint by submitting that the partition between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal has already been taken which was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of suit and by way of the said partition the land bearing Survey No.9 came into the share of defendant No.1 Babulal, therefore, he was having right to sell the same. During the evidence the plaintiffs tendered two documents. The first document dated 31.12.1996 namely a Receipt of Partition executed by “Bahadurlal” and second namely as “Batwara Patrak” signed and executed on 10.10.1990 by Bahadurlal and Mishrilal both. The respondents objected the same on the ground that the plaintiffs are trying to establish partition in evidence by way of these documents. Both the deeds are neither registered nor properly stamped, therefore, same cannot be marked as exhibit.

4. The plaintiffs submitted that the receipt dated 31.12.1966 cannot be treated as partition deed because it was signed by only Bahadurlal and the Batwara Patrak dated 10.10.1990 is memorandum of acceptance of partition done earlier which is not required to be registered nor stamped, hence it is admissible in the evidence.

5. Learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties has held that the Batwara Patrak dated 10.10.1990 is admissible in the evidence which is nothing but acceptance of partition done earlier but the receipt dated 31.12.1996 is not admissible into evidence as it has neither been registered nor properly stamped.

6. The plaintiffs have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.4.2016 by which the receipt of partition dated 31.12.1996 has been declared inadmissible into the evidence and sent for impounding.

7. Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the “Instrument of Partition” is defined under section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act and according to which whereby co-owners of the property divide or agreed to divide such property by way of instrument signed by the co-owners. Shri Jain emphasized that the receipt deed dated 31.12.1996 was signed by only Bahadurlal and not by Mishrilal, therefore, it cannot be treated as an instrument of partition amongst the co-owners. The so called receipt dated 31.12.1996 is not the deed by which the partition took place between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal but the partition had already been taken much prior to it and finally recorded in the partition deed dated 10.10.1990, therefore, the trial Court has committed error of law as well as fact by treating the document dated 31.12.1996 as a partition deed.

8. Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the recital and contents of the documents are decisive and conclusive factors in its admissibility of documents. The contents of the deed dated 31.12.1966 clearly describes that partition took place between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal which has been finally recorded in the partition deed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgm