-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2008 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1467 OF 2008 IN S.A.NO. 584 /2008 Shri Maruti Kalya Tambe .. Appellant. V/s. Smt. Shantabai Vasudeo Parulekar & Anr. .. Respondents. --- Mr. N.V.Bandiwadekar for the Appellant. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. DATED : 07th OCTOBER, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff. His suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant’s appeal to the lower appellate court was also dismissed and therefore, the present second appeal. 3. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the suit properties belonging to joint Hindu Family, orally partitioned in the year 1980 and effect to this -: 2 :- partition was given in the year 1988. In view of this finding, the petitioner’s suit came to be dismissed. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the document which is being relied upon by the respondent- defendant no.1 was not registered and therefore, it cannot be said that the partition was effected in the year 1988. He relied upon the apex court’s judgment in Siromani, Siromani vs. Hemkumar, Dinmani, reported in 1968 DGLS (Soft.) 93 = 1968 AIR (SC) 1299. The Apex Court in Siromani’s case in para 4 observed that though the document is unregistered one, the same is admissible to prove the intention on the part of the co-parceners to become divided in status. This judgement of the apex court’s does not support the submissions of Mr. Bandivadekar, the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Mr. Bandivadekar also relied on the judgement of the Privy Council in the case of Ram Rattan vs. Parma Nand reported in AIR (33) 1946 Privy Council 51 to contend that unstamped document cannot be read in evidence for the collateral purpose. However, in view of the ratio of the Apex Court’s judgment in Siromani’s case (supra), I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. In order to prove partition what is required is unequivocal intention. -: 3 :- Such an intention is proved by the respondent-defendant and therefore, the lower appellate court rightly dismissed the appellant’s suit. 5. No question much less substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 6. In view of the dismissal of second appeal, the civil application will not survive and the same is disposed of as such. (R.V.MORE,J.)