LAXMIBAI Vs. VAIJINATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

(2.) The facts briefly stated are as follows:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends, while reiterating the above sequence of events, that by the impugned order substantial injustice has been caused. The trial Court has overlooked the circumstance that even an unregistered memorandum of partition was admissible in evidence for collateral purposes. On an interpretation of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Registration Act', for brevity). The finding of the trial Court that the document in question was not a memorandum of partition, is improper and that, on an overall reading of the document, it is possible to construe the document as a memorandum of partition. It is to support these contentions that reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners on the following judgments: