1807wp3351.11.odt 1 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.NO.3351 of 2011. Smt.Vimalabai Vishnupant Bobade ..vs.. Rajendra Vishnupant Bobade and ors. ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr.C.A.Babrekar, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 18th July, 2011. 1. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17/1/2011, by which order the application for leading secondary evidence in respect of a Partition-Deed dated 14/10/1980 came to be rejected. 2. The petitioner herein is the original defendant no.1 in Spl. Civil Suit No.189 of 2006, which has been filed by the respondent herein for partition and separate possession of the property of one Vishnupant Chandrabhan Bobade, who died on 1/5/1988. It is the case of the plaintiff that there was a oral partition between the parties; whereas it is the case of the defendant no.1, as stated in the written statement, that the partition of the property was effected by a Partition-Deed dated 14/10/1080 which is in possession of the plaintiff no.1 Rajendra. The defendant no.1 had issued a notice to the plaintiff no.1 Rajendra to produce 1807wp3351.11.odt 2 the said partition deed dated 14/10/1980. 3. In reply to the said notice, Rajendra denied the custody of the said Partition-Deed and further states that the said document is inadmissible in evidence in view of the fact that it is an unregistered document and therefore permission for leading secondary evidence could not be granted. 4. The Trial Court by order dated 17/1/2011 has rejected the said application, inter alia holding that since the said document is an unregistered document and since the plaintiff’s case is that of oral partition, the permission to lead secondary evidence could not be granted. 5. The Trial Court relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1968 Mh.L.J.791 in the matter of Siromani and anr. ..vs.. Hemkumar and ors. wherein the Apex Court held that an unregistered deed effecting a partition of property by allotting specific properties to individual coparceners is inadmissible to prove either the title of any of the coparceners to any particular property or to prove that the property has ceased to be joint property. The ratio of the said judgment would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1976 AIR ( SC) 807 in the matter of Kale ..vs.. Deputy Director of Consolidation. The issue before the Apex Court was in respect of a family arrangement, wherein the Apex Court has held that the document prepared, on the basis of family arrangement already made by the parties, does not require registration. In my view, the said judgment would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as mentioned herein above. In that view of the matter, 1807wp3351.11.odt 3 no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute