SURENDRASINGH S/O SHRI VIJAYBAHADURSINGH AND OTHERS Vs. NARENDRASINGH S/O VIJAYBAHADURSINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2011 passed by 1st Civil Judge Class II, Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 7 -A/2011, whereby objection raised by the petitioners regarding admissibility of the document was rejected, present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a suit for declaration, which was contested by the petitioners. In the said suit at the stage of evidence memorandum of family arrangement dated 30.10.70 was filed. An objection was raised by the petitioners about admissibility of the document, which was rejected holding that for the collateral purpose document was admissible in evidence against which present petition has been filed.

(3.) SHRI A.S.Garg, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5, submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned order because by the said document the partition, which took place earlier verbally was recorded. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Guljarilal Jain Vs. Ravikant Shikre, : 2010(1) MPLJ 580 wherein Divisional Bench of this Court has held that the document which itself does not effect a partition but merely acknowledges the earlier partition does not require registration. Reliance is also placed on a decision in the matter of Roshan Singh Vs. Zile Singh,, AIR 1988 SC 881 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had a occasion to make a distinction between the document family arrangement and partition and held that subsequent memorandum of partition embodying factum of partition is only family arrangement and its registration is not necessary. On the strength of aforesaid position of law, learned counsel submits that the petition be dismissed.