THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3212 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the order-dated 2.7.2009 passed in O.S.No. 3145 of 2005 on the file of VI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The petitioners are defendants in the suit an the Suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents ever interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property including dismantling the schedule property in any manner. 3. Pending trial of the Suit, plaintiff filed a document-dated 2.9.1984, which is styled as ‘joint family members settlement’. On 2.7.2009 the Court below observed as under: “ Examination in Chief:- Evidence affidavit of the witness filed an the same is taken as examination in Chief. The learned counsel for the defendant has objected the document dated 2.9.1984 which is styled as joint family members settlement deed. A thorough reading of the above aid document clearly shows that the family members have written their respective shares which are being enjoyed in pursuance of their past transaction and the objections raised by the learned counsel for defendant is not sustainable as this document does not require any stamp duty or Registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. Exs. A1 to A6 are marked in seriatim as described in page No. 4 of the evidence affidavit. Cross examination by the counsel for defendants:- Cross examination deferred at the request of the defendant counsel” 4. Aggrieved by the above said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-defendants submits that the order of the Court below is contrary to law and the suit document will reveal that the same is partition deed creating interest in the properties as such the said deed inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. He also drawn our attention to the judgment of this Court reported in KHAJA HABEEBUDDIN VS. MD. IBRAHIM AND OTHERS[1], the relevant portion reads as under: “ in the light of the law laid down by this court in the judgments referred to above, the document in question cannot be received in evidence to establish the factum of partition. It, however, can be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of severance of status and nothing more.” 6. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the document clearly shows that the family members have written their respective shares and the document does not require any stamp duty or Registration as per Section 17 of Registration Act and the order passed by the Court below is quite correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 8. As seen from the order, the document dated 2.9.1984 which is styled as ‘joint family members settlement deed’ and it clearly shows that the family members have written their respective shares which are being enjoyed and the settlement deed executed by the members showing their past transaction and it does not require any Stamp Duty or Registration as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. In the circumstances, the above document shall be subject to proof and admissibility and at the threshold it cannot be rejected as the both the parties will have the liberty to raise the objections for the same. Therefore, I see no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is thus dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 02.07.2010 KA [1] 2004 (3) ALT 51