KAHEEDA MOIN Vs. MOHAMMAD IQBAL ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 716 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Rangareddi District, Hyderabad questioning the impugned orders dt. 4-9-1997by which the disputed document dt. 17-2-1983 was not permitted to be marked as evidence as inadmissible on the ground of non-registration.

(2.) The revision petitioners, who are the plaintiffs, filed the said suit seeking the relief of declaration of their title and for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for the relief of permanent injunction against the respondents herein contending that the suit property along with some other properties were jointly purchased by them under a registered sale deed dt. 10-9-1979 and all of them continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the said properties, that subsequently there was a partition of those properties effected on 17-2-1983 in the presence of elders and in that partition the present suit properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs and the other properties fell to the share of the defendants and ever since then the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the properties that fell to their share and that the suit is now filed as their title to the suit properties is being disputed by the defendants. They also contended that at the time of the above said partition on 17-2-1983 the disputed document was executed mentioning the particulars of the abovesaid partition. When the plaintiff was being examined as P.W. 1 and when the abovesaid document, which is described as memorandum of partition dt. 17-2-1993 (sic. 1983) was sought to be marked as evidence, the defendants raised an objection on the ground that it is an unregistered partition deed evidencing partition and as such it is inadmissible in evidence. The lower Court by the impugned orders dt. 4-9-1997 upheld the said objection raised by the defendants and did not permit the said document to go into evidence on the ground that it is a partition deed which is compulsorily required to be registered and that inasmuch as it is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence. Questioning such orders the present revision is filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Both the Counsel are heard.