KRISHNA Vs. SMT. VAIJANTIBAI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.9.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Khetiya, District-Badwani in Civil Suit No.23-A/2018 whereby the objection raised by the respondent/defendant with respect to exhibiting the document has been allowed and the documents are not taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit against the respondent/defendant for declaration and partition. According to plaint, the schedule of the properties mentioned in the plaint are in the name of father of the petitioner, respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent/defendant has filed the written statement and the denied the averments made in the plaint. The petitioner has therefore, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. for taking the documents with respect to partition on record. The said application was allowed by the court below vide order dated 17.9.2017 and the partition deed dated 13.6.2016 is taken on record. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and his cross-examination was commenced on 17.9.2019. During the course of the cross-examination of the petitioner, he has exhibited the partition deed in evidence. Objection was raised by the respondent/defendant regarding admissibility of the said document. However, the court below has allowed the objection of the respondent/defendant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the provisions of Indian Registration Act would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Conclusion drawn by the court below is ex-facie illegal and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He further submitted that the document in question is not required to be registered. For the said purpose, he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation : reported in 1976 (3) SCC 119.