JAIDEEP SINGH Vs. BHARAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2009 whereby the learned court below held that the document Annex. 7 dated 14.4.1973 on the basis of which the present petitioner -plaintiffs claimed their title over the suit land and prayed for injunction against the defendant is a partition deed which requires registration in accordance with Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act 1908 and, therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence without such registration.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner -plaintiffs Mr. Vijay Bishnoi relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Roshan Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 881 and in the case of N. Khosla v. Rajlakshmi (dead) and Ors. : (2006) 3 SCC 605 submitted that the document in question Annex. 7 in this writ petition dated 14.4.1973 merely records a factum of partition which had taken place in the past and a mere documentation of such partition is only a memorandum of partition which document does not require registration and, therefore, the learned court below has erred in rejecting the same to be admitted in evidence without registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. He drew attention of the Court towards certain stipulations made in the said document which indicates its recording of past understanding between the family members of one Kalyan Singh whose sons are the parties to the suit before the learned trial court.

(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsels and after perusing the said document dated 14.4.1973, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has erred in holding the said document to be compulsorily registrable. The legal position in this regard is settled and it is like this 'It is well -settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or serving ownership and causes a changes of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under Sections 17(1)(b) of the Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not require registration.' vide S.C. decision in Roshan Singh and Ors. v. Zile Singh and Ors. (supra).