An unregistered partition deed can be admitted as corroborative evidence in a partition suit if it records the parties' arrangements, despite objections regarding its admissibility due to lack of registration and stamp duty.

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.04.2023 in O.S.No.1658 of 2016 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Ibrahimpatnam.

2. An application filed in I.A.No.396 of 2022 to receive certain documents subject to proof and relevancy, which includes original partition deed dated 25.04.2001. During the marking of this document in O.S.No.1658 of 2023, learned counsel for the defendants raised objections regarding its admissibility in evidence contending that it should compulsorily be registrable document and, therefore the same cannot be received as evidence.

3. The trial court after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties vide docket order dated 17.04.2023 admitted the said document in evidence holding that the suit was filed for partition basing on the unregistered family document or the list of properties partitioned without metes and bounds and as such the said document can be admitted in evidence for corroboration. Aggrieved by the said docket order 17.04.2023 of the trial Court, the petitioner herein/defendant No.2 preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.2 contended that the partition deed is compulsorily registerable document and it was unstamped and cannot be admitted in evidence. The document mentioned in the partition list is not recognized as a partition deed. He further contended that the suit property was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed document No.529/1984, dated 07.01.1984, and the title vested with the petitioner and respondents/plaintiffs claimed under an unregistered partition deed dated 25.04.2001. As such Section 17(1) of the Registration Act comes into operation and the document dated 25.04.2001 becomes compulsorily registerable one it is inadmissible for want of registration.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thulasidhara and another Vs. Narayanaappa1, 2019 Law Suit S.C.1161. He further contended that the trial court failed to see that the plaintiff is using the document to gain ½ share and not for any collateral purpose of severance of status. Even if the document dated 25.04.2001 is construed as a partition list, it still requires stamp duty. Since the document in question is written on unstamped paper, it is barred under Section 35 of the Stamp Act and is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence, even for collateral purposes. Therefore requested to set aside the docket order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the trial court.

7. The respondents/plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1658 of 2016 for partition and separate possession. Along with the suit, they filed a xerox copy of a partition list dated 25.04.2001. In the written statement filed by petitioner/defendant No.2, he denied the allegations and stated that he purchased the property way back in the year 1984, asserting it is his self-acquired property. He further mentioned that he constructed the house with his own earnings. O.S.No.1434 of 2014 was decreed on 09.02.2015, and O.S.No.246 of 2014 was filed by defendant No.1 and it is still pending, contended that the partition deed dated 25.04.2001 is compulsorily registrable document and it is inadmissible in evidence even for collateral purposes.

8. F