An unregistered partition deed cannot create or declare rights over property but may be admitted for collateral purposes if conditions are met; admissibility concerns must be resolved at the final judgment stage.

COMMON ORDER:

Civil Revision Petition No.2723 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 in O.S No.178 of 2013 challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.1515 of 2021 in O.S. No.178 of 2013 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for demarking the document marked as Ex.B2, a certified copy of the unregistered partition deed dated 22.06.1969.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.2876 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 in O.S. No.179 of 2013, challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.1516 of 2021 in O.S. No.179 of 2013 by the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for demarking the document marked as Ex.B2, a certified copy of the unregistered partition deed dated 22.06.1969.

3. Heard Sri Sripada Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Setty Raviteja, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri M. Shiva Shekar, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no objection was taken by the respondents while exhibiting Ex.B2- uregsitered partition deed. The same was filed and marked on 08.11.2021. The said partition deed was also earlier marked as exhibit in O.S. No.311 of 2009 between the same parties except one among them, D. Shalini-respondent No.4 herein (plaintiff No.4). The document Ex.B2 was an age old document executed on 22.06.1969, as such, the trial Court ought to have drawn a legal presumption. The trial Court failed to see that Ex.B2 was validated and endorsed by the Collector, Hyderabad District, under the Indian Stamps Act on 18.07.2000. It was the second round of litigation. The plaintiff No.1 was the daughter-in-law of one Veeroji. The petitioners herein- defendants were the sons of late Veeranna and late Chinnoji, brothers of late Veeroji. There was an oral partition among the brothers and by virtue of a family settlement, all the brothers were residing in separate portions in the suit schedule property. But, the property was registered in the name of Veeroji, the elder brother. The plaintiff No.1 during the lifetime of her husband or her father-in-law never objected the possession of the defendants in the suit schedule property, but after their death, as she was claiming the property as that of Veeroji alone, the defendants filed a suit for injunction vide O.S. No.311 of 2009 on the file of I-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and the same was allowed. The appeal filed against it by the respondents-plaintiffs herein vide A.S. No.62 of 2012 was also dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court on 21.06.2016. The partition deed was marked as an exhibit in the said suit in O.S. No.311 of 2001 as Ex.A1 therein. No objection was taken at the time of marking the said document in the said suit.

4.1 The respondents herein subsequently filed the present suits O.S. Nos.178 and 179 of 2013 against the revision petitioners- defendants seeking the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiff No.1 was examined in these suits as PW.1 and she admitted in her cross-examination that the defendants were residing in the suit schedule properties since 1969. The husband of plaintiff No.1 nor her father-in-law Veeroji never objected the partition during their lifetime. As the document marked under Ex.B2 was also earlier marked as an exhibit in O.S No.311 of 2009 and no objection was recorded at the time of marking the said document, the trial Court ought not to have de-exhibited the same. The trial Court ought to have taken a call at the time of the judgment without passing any order in the impugned application and relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another , [(2001) 3 SCC 1] on the aspect that: “13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proc