C I JOHNSON Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIRST petitioner is the brother of the second petitioner and the second petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner.

(2.) EXT.P1 is a sale deed whereby the first and third petitioners have purchased 2 cents of land in Sy.No.1765/1 and 8 cents of land in Sy.No.1765/2, Poonkunnam Village. EXT.P2 is another sale deed whereby the first and second petitioners, brothers purchased 9.840 cents of land in Sy.No.27/1 of Koorkkancherry Village.

(3.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, on presentation of the original of Ext.P3, the 1st respondent should have gone by the recitals contained in Ext.P3 itself and treating the parties to the document as co owners, should have registered the document as a partition deed. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is sought to substantiated by referring to the judgments in Venkatappa v. Musal (AIR 1934 Madras 204), West Punjab Government v. Gain Chand {AIR (36) 1949 Lahore 126}, N.Venkalah v. J.V.Venkamma (AIR 1958 A.P. 457).