BADRILAL Vs. MANIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to assail the validity of the interlocutory Order dated 6/10/2005 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Anjad, in Civil Suit No. 19-A/2004. By the order impugned, application filed by petitioners for taking the unregistered partition deed on record and to receive it in evidence was rejected.

(2.) It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 and 2 respectively, are the widow and daughter of late Ashok, son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of petitioner No.2 and 3 respectively. It is also undisputed that Ashok's undivided share in the suit property i.e. joint family property comprising of agricultural holdings and a residential house, more particularly described in the plaint, was inherited by respondent No. 1 and 2 upon his death. It is further not disputed that after the death of Ashok, respondent No. 1 and 2, had been living with the parents of respondent No. 1 and after their death, now respondent No. 1 & 2 are living with the brother of respondent No.1. As per the plaint, case of respondent No. 1. and 2, in nut shell, is that petitioner No. 1 to 3 in connivance with revenue official partitioned the suit property amongst them and unlawfully deprived respondent No. 1 and 2 of Ashok's undivided share, therefore, the suit as mentioned above. Petitioners, who are the contesting defendants, opposed the claim in suit and claimed that by virtue of partition deed dated 20-5-1992, respondent No. 1 was given in hard cash Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac) in lieu of late Ashok's share and Petitioner No. 1 also undertook to meet the marriage expenses of respondent No. 2 at the time of her marriage in future.

(3.) During trial of the suit, petitioners sought permission to bring on record the partition deed and tender it in evidence. Respondents opposed the prayer. By the order impugned, learned trial Judge refused permission, and held that in view of the statutory bar, the unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence.