1. Plaintiff-respondent 1 sued in the lower Court for partition. The relationship between the parties will be seen from the following genealogical tree.

GAMNAJI

Rodba

Sadasheo

Daulat

Bhagwan

Gangaji

d. 23-4-24

d. 29-9-21

Waman deft. 1

Ramchandra deft. 7

Namdeoplff.

Ganpat deft. 2

Krishna deft. 3

Kesheo deft. 4

Anandrao deft. 5

Narayan deft. 6

2. Only one item of the family property is-in dispute in the case, namely an 8 annas share of M. Mangi. According to the plain, tiff this 8 annas is owned by the sons of Bhagwan and Gangaji, each set of sons being interested to the extent of 4 annas. The other 8 annas share is owned by defendant 1. His branch separated long ago and got this 8 annas. Defendant 1 is consequently not directly interested in this suit. But it was necessary to join him because some of the home farm appertaining to the 8 annas in suit lies in his patti and consequently there can be no proper division of the farm of that patti without his presence. According to the plaintiff there was a partition on 2nd April 1924 (Ex. 7 D-1) between Bhagwan and Gangaji but the 8 annas share now in suit was not divided by metes and bounds because litigation was pending in respect of it, but each took a separate though undivided half in it. On 14th June 1925 there was a second partition, after the death of Bhagwan and Gangaji, between the sons of Gangaji. In it Gangaji's undivided 4 annas share was assigned to defendant 2 Ganpat. On 22nd May 1928 a third partition (Ex. P-33) was effected between the sons of Bhagwan. In it 4 annas out of the 8 annas in suit was assigned to the plaintiff's share. The plain, tiff now wants this 4 annas to be ascertained and divided off from the rest by metes and bounds. The difficulty in his way is that the deeds, Ex. 7-D-1 and Ex. P-33, relating to the first and third partitions, are unregistered and the question is whether the plaintiff can prove them.

3. His learned counsel argued that it did not much matter whether this could be done or not because if this property was not then divided, then he has a right to claim division now, and as there is no quarrel between his brother defendant 7, and himself, except on a minor point which does not concern us here, he is still entitled to 4 annas, or at any rate, at the worst, he should be given 2 annas and his brother 2 annas. The defendant's reply to this is that a partition cannot be partial, and that if the plaintiff wants to have the family estate divided it must all be brought into the hotchpot and consequently this suit, which is for the division of only one item of property, does not lie. Dealing first with the question of non-registration, the plaintiff's contention is that the deeds referred to are not instruments of partition: they merely recite a past event. Therefore, they do not require registration. This question was dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Bose J.) was a party, in Narayan Sakharam v. Cooperative Central Bank Malkapur, 1938 AIR(Nag) 434 and the law, founded on two decisions of the Privy Council, was expressed as follows:

It can be accepted at once that mere lists of property do not form an instrument of partition and so would not require registration, but what we have to determine here is whether these documents are mere lists or in themselves purport to 'create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish..... any right, title or interest' in the property which is admittedly over Rs. 100 in value. The question is whether these lists merely contain the recital of past events or in themselves embody the expression of will necessary to effect the change in the legal relation contemplated.

4. The two Privy Council decisions on which this is based are Bageshwari Charan Singh v Jagarnath Kuari, 1932 AIR(PC) 55 at p. 279 and Subramonian v. Lutchman, 1923 AIR(PC) 50 at page 345. We have therefore to scrutinize these documents. Exhibit 7-D-1 calls itself a receipt. It recites:

5. You an