1. Correctness of the order dated 7.12.2016 passed in Civil Suit

No.86-A/2015 is being questioned by the petitioners-plaintiffs.

2. Vide impugned order, the trial Court while rejecting the application preferred by the plaintiffs under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, directed that the instrument recording partition presented by the defendant shall not be admitted in evidence, but can be used for collateral purpose.

3. Though, it is contended on behalf of petitioner that in principle the trial Court is justified in holding that the instrument which was compulsorily registerable under section 17 of the Registration Act having not been registered, cannot be admitted in evidence; however, while directing that it be used for collateral purpose, the trial Court exceeded in expanding the aspect of collateral purpose by including within its fold the aspect of diversion of joint property by metes and bounds.

4. It is the following observations made by the trial Court which the petitioner takes exception of:-

^^foHkktu ds okn esa vjftLVªhd`r nLrkost ij lkaikf'oZd iz;kstu vFkkZr~ gd dh i`Fkdrk] fofHkUu fgLlksa ds dCts dh izd`fr ds fy, fo'okl O;Dr fd;k tk ldrk gS] ijUrq izkFkfed iz;kstu vFkkZr~ eki vkSj lhek ds }kjk la;qDr laifÙk;ksa ds foHkktu ds fy, ughaA

vLVkfEir foys[k lk{; esa lkaikf'oZd iz;kstu ds fy, xzkg~; ugha gksrs gSA tc rd mUgsa ifjc) u fd;k x;k gksA iz'uk/khu nLrkost ifjc) gSA blfy, lcwr vkSj lqxarrk ds v/khu iz'uk/khu nLrkost lkaikf'oZd iz;kstu ds fy, izfroknh dks fpfUg~r djkus dh Lora=rk izkIr gSA^^

5. The issue as to what extent an unregistered partition deed can be used for collateral purpose is no more res integra. In Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh [AIR 1988 SC 881], it has been held :

16. … It is well-settled that the document though unregistered can however be looked into for the limited purpose of establishing a severance in status, though that severance would ultimately affect the nature of the possession held by the members of the separated family as co-tenants. The document Ex.P-12 can be used for the limited and collateral purpose of showing that the subsequent division of the properties allotted was in pursuance of the original intention to divide. In any view, the document Ex.P-12 was a mere list of properties allotted to the shares of the parties.

In Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah v. B. Lakshmi Narayana [AIR 1962 A.P. 132] (approved by the Supreme Court in Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra [(2009)2 SCC 532)], it has been held :

"10. In the result, I agree with the learned Munsif Magistrate that the document is 'an instrument of partition' under section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act and it is not admissible in evidence because it is not stamped. But, I further held that if the document becomes duly stamped, then it would be admissible to evidence to prove the division in status but not the terms of the partition."

Recently, in Yellapu Uma Maheshwari v. Buddha Jagadheeswararao : [Civil Appeal No.8441 of 2015], arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12788/2014 decided on 8.10.2015 : [2015 AIR SCW 6184], it has been held :

“18. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The Larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy v. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Vankat Reddy [AIR 1969 A.P. (242)], has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstamped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellants/