LEELA DEVI Vs. AMAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dtd. 17/11/2006 passed by the learned trial court whereby the documents submitted by the respondent no.1 have been permitted to be taken on record. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction on 19/10/2005 before the learned District Judge, Bhilwara, which was subsequently trans- ferred to the court of Additional District Judge, Bhilwara. The prayer clause of the suit, is reproduced hereunder :-

(2.) The defendant respondent no.1 filed a written statement to the suit, wherein it was submitted that on account of a family set- tlement arrived between the family members, the property in- dispute came into ownership and possession of the answering defendant. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit on 26/7/2006. The cross-examination on affidavit was started and during the same, the respondent no.1 defendant submitted a family settlement dtd. 6/9/1977. The petitioner-plaintiff took an objection upon the filing of the family settlement alleging that the same was not a family settlement but a partition-deed. It was further contended that since the document in-question being a partition-deed was neither properly stamped nor registered, therefore, cannot be on record to be adduced as evidence. It was further contended that the document in-question was not a family settlement but a partition-deed because the contents of it clearly shows the transfer of land from one person to the other and the other person getting right, title and interest in such property and, therefore, the document cannot be said to be a family settlement but a sale-deed. It has also been contended that the property in-dispute is a self acquired property and not a joint family property and, thus, in such circumstances the property in-dispute could be transferred only by way of a partition-deed and not by any other mode.

(3.) The learned trial court after hearing the parties and on considering various clauses of the document, vide order dtd. 17/11/2006 arrived at a conclusion that the document in-question being a family settlement does not require registration and, thus, can be taken into evidence. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dtd. 17/11/2006 preferred present writ petition.