KHAJA HABEEBUDDIN Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.31 of 2001 in the court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, claiming the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

(2.) Petitioner and respondents No.2 to 9 figured as defendants therein. The suit was resisted by the petitioner mainly on the ground that there was a prior partition way back in the year 1957. The trial of the suit was commenced. The evidence on behalf of , the plaintiff-1st respondent is said to have been closed. The petitioner is being examined as D.W.1. During the course of his evidence, he sought to mark the two documents viz., the alleged agreement dated 15-7-1957 and alleged award dated 16-8-1957. The 1 st respondent opposed the same on the ground that the documents, if taken on their face value constitute partition deeds and unless registered, cannot be accepted in evidence. Through its order dated 7-8-2003, the trial court has sustained the objection raised by the 1 st respondent. Hence, this Revision Petition by the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao submits that the documents referred to above by themselves did not bring about any partition and even if they were not registered they were admissible in evidence. The learned counsel also submits that even if the document is to be treated as a partition deed and not registered, it can be received in evidence for collateral purpose. He placed relies upon the Judgments of this court reported in