ARYENDRA PRASAD Vs. DHARMENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE only question for consideration is whether the document is a deed of partition or a memorandum of partition, as according to the petitioner it is a deed of partition whereas according to the opposite party the same is memorandum of partition.

(3.) BY the impugned order, the court below held that the deed in question is a memorandum of partition (Yaddast) and not deed of partition. The said document has been annexed as Annexure -1 to this revision application. From perusal of the same, it appears that it is a partition deed as by the same deed power has been given to divide the properties between the claimants. It is not a memorandum of partition evidencing that the partition had already taken effect and the document has been executed by way of memorandum. The court below has committed material illegality in exercise of jurisdiction in holding that the document is a memorandum of partition. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to proceed in the matter by treating the document as deed of partition. It is a suit of 1987. The court below is directed to expedite its disposal.