KAKKARLA VIJAYA Vs. KAKKARLA VENKATAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel on both sides.

(2.) The question raised in this CRP relates to the admissibility of the document dated 13-7-1992 produced by the petitioners/ defendants in the suit. The suit is filed by the respondent for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff. The defence is that the plaintiff-respondent himself executed a document dated 13-7-1992 styled as will deed wherein he allotted certain properties to the defendants with immediate rights and also provided that the remaining family properties shall go to them after his life-time. When the defendant sought to tender the said document in evidence, the plaintiff raised an objection with regard to its admissibility. By the impugned order the lower Court upheld the objection raised by the plaintiff and held that the said document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. It further held that the document in question cannot be admitted even for the collateral purpose of proving the nature and character of possession of defendants as the main purpose of tendering the document in evidence is to show the terms of the document which cannot be said to be a collateral purpose.

(3.) In the decision of Mutyala Reddy v. Venkata Reddy, AIR 1969 AP 242, a Full Bench of five judges of this Court held that though an unregistered partition deed cannot be looked into for terms of partition, it can be looked into for establishing severance in status. In the decision of this Court in Kahida Moin and others v. Mohd Iqbal and others, 1998 (5) ALD 633, a learned single Judge of this Court referring to the earlier decisions, held that though an unregistered partition deed cannot be let in evidence for establishing the terms of partition, it can be admitted in evidence for the limited collateral purpose of proving the factum of partition and nature of possession of the parties to the document. In C.S. Kumara Swami v. A. Gounder, AIR 1974 Mad. 239, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that