Unregistered partition deeds are admissible in evidence for collateral purposes, including demonstrating the nature of possession, conduct of parties, and acting as a memorandum of an existing oral partition, and should be marked as exhibits tentatively during trial subject to final adjudication.

Order on Board

1. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 passed by IInd Civil Judge (Senior Division) Mungeli, in Civil Suit No.49-A/2022 whereby the trial court sustained the objection raised by the defendant No.1 with respect to marking of ths Exhibits on the documents of two Batwaranamas dated 15.09.2014 during the examination of the witness Dilip Nirmalkar on 11.08.2025.

2. The subject matter in brief is that, the petitioners are plaintiffs before the trial court. They are prosecuting a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over the suit land Khasra No. 157/1 area 0.148 Hect., Khasra No.50/2 area 0.243 Hect. situated at village Jota, Tehsil Pathariya, District Mungeli. It was the claim of the plaintiff that the suit lands were initially owned by the father of plaintiff No.1&3 and father of defendant No.1&2 namely late Milau. After his death, the suit land was mutated in the names of plaintiffs No.1&3 and defendant No.1&2 jointly. The defendant No.1 filed an application for partition of the suit land before the Tehsildar Pathariya and considering the provisions of Section 178 of The Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, the Tehsildar Pathariya directed the parties to get their title decided by the competent civil court thereafter they filed the suit civil suit. It is pleaded that during the lifetime of their father late Milaur Ram had already partitioned his property between the plaintiffs and defendants and as per their partition, the suit land was obtained in the share of plaintiff No.1&3. The other land of 40 dismil out of Khasra No.157 and 40 dismil was given to plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.3 is differently abled and unmarried for whom their father have retained 0.60 Acre of land of Khasra No.50/2 and it was given to her. As per their partition, the parties are cultivating their land separately. On the basis of oral partition a deed of memorandum of partition was executed on 15.09.2014 by their father late Milau in presence of witnesses and thereafter they got their names mutated as per their respective shares. The defendant No.1 sold his property which was obtained by him in partition. After partition of the property, late Milau executed a Will on 23.10.2013 in favour of plaintiff No.2 Niraj Kumar with respect to 1.25 Acres of land and the liability of nurture of plaintiff No.3 was given to plaintiff No.2, yet the defendants are raising dispute over the suit land by which the civil suit was filed.

3. The defendants in their written statement denied the fact of partition and claimed that the suit property was never partitioned and they have equal share over the suit land as per their their respective share. They also denied oral partition by their father late Milau and stated that the suit lands are still lands of undivided family and claimed dismissal of the suit.

4. The issues have been framed by the trial court and recording of plaintiff’s evidence was started. During recording of plaintiff’s evidence, on 11.08.2025 while exhibiting deeds dated 15.09.2014 an objection was raised by the defendant No.1 with respect to exhibiting those documents in evidence on the ground that it was an unregistered document and therefore it cannot be exhibited in evidence and is inadmissible.

5. The trial court decided the objection on 22.08.2025 and sustained the objection hold