JUDGMENT

M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.21.01.2010 in O.S.No.380 of 2012 of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. In the said Docket Order, the said Court had held that a document dt.21.4.1997 styled as "Deed of declaration of partition between coowners" executed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the said suit and which was tendered in cross-examination and confronted to P.W.1, is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, and that it is a compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

3. The Court below in the impugned order had mentioned that the recitals in the document show that there is division of shares and allotment of shares, that there is a reference also to relinquishment of interest of the parties therein in the properties allotted to each party, that it does not record past events or understandings, and is therefore compulsorily registerable; and because it is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 contended that the Court below erred in taking the view that this document dt.21.04.1997 cannot be admitted in evidence, that the said document is sufficiently stamped and deserved to be marked in evidence; that it was executed by the 1st respondent himself who had denied it in his crossexamination; and it did not require registration. He also contended that the said document had been marked in several proceedings without any objection regarding its non-registration and it cannot be now objected to.

5. Cross-Examination of P.W.1/1st respondent/plaintiff is filed in the material papers filed with the Revision which indicates that he was confronted with the certified copy of the said document, but he denied his signature and thumb impression on it.

6. On 24.04.2020, notice was ordered to the respondents and in IA No.1 of 2020 interim stay was granted of further proceedings in the suit.

7. I.A.No.2 of 2020 is filed by the 1st respondent to vacate this order.

8. It is contended by the 1st respondent that the above document, if carefully perused, though styled as "Deed of declaration of partition between co-owners" and though in the nature of an affidavit, is in fact was a deed of release and relinquishment along with allotment of shares to various members of the family. It is contended that a document of such a nature requires registration and because it is unregistered, it cannot be admitted in evidence. It is contended that even if this document had been marked in another suit, that fact would be irrelevant in deciding the admissibility of this document in the instant suit. It is further contended that PW1 had in fact not signed the said document and he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the impugned order did not warrant any interference.

9. I have noted the contentions of both sides.

10. The recitals in the document dt.21.04.1997 are as under:

" Deed of declaration of partition between co-owners

I, RAMESH SINGH, S/o. Late Chotan Singh Hazari, Aged 45 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. H.No.14-10-1287, Puranapul, Hyderabad, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY STATE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS :-

1. WHEREAS, a Plot bearing M.C.H.No.14-10-1287, Extent 227.32 Sq.Yards situated at Puranapool, Hyderabad was originally purchased by my uncle Sri GANESH SINGH HAZARI in the name of this Executant, the Executant herein was minor of having 16 years of age at the time of Purchase of abovesaid Plot in the year 1968 i.e., on 9-1-1968, from one Sri IQRAR ALI SHAH, S/o. TASAVVUR ALI "VENDOR" vide document No.32/68 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Doodh-bowli, Hyderabad.

2. WHEREAS my uncle Sri GANESH SINGH HAZARI obtained Municipal Permission in my name and constructed 8 (eight) mulgies at the ground floor and two (2) Residential Portions i.e., 1st & 2nd floors. The Mulgies (Shops) are having M.C.H.Nos.14-10-1287