HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4891 OF 2009 DATE:14-10-2011 BETWEEN Bodati Subba Rao …Petitioner AND Bodati Nageswara Rao and others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4891 OF 2009 ORDER: In a suit filed for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, two documents, one to prove the factum of partition of the suit schedule property earlier to filing of the suit and the other to prove the receipt issued by the plaintiff for Rs.9,000/- for relinquishing his rights over the suit schedule property were sought to be marked by the petitioner herein. An objection was raised by the plaintiff stating that those documents require registration and the same cannot be marked in evidence. The lower Court by the impugned docket order dated 3.6.2009 held that the documents sought to be marked require stamp duty and registration and therefore, they cannot be marked or received in evidence in view of Section 7(1)(b) and Section 49 of Registration Act and Section 91 of Evidence Act. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed by the second defendant. Admittedly, there was earlier partition deed in the form of ‘Vatala Jabita’ (list of shares), which shows that there was division of the suit schedule property and from the date of such division, the properties that were fell to the share of the parties were taken possession by the respective parties. Thus the said ‘Vatala Jabita’ shows that the properties were partitioned by metes and bounds on the said date, which requires necessary stamp duty and registration. Further under the receipt that was sought to be marked, plaintiff relinquished his rights over the property situated in R.S.No.574/3 to an extent of Ac.0.40 cents; R.S.No.466/1 to an extent of Ac.1.09 cents; R.S.No.480/1 to an extent of Ac.0.28 cents; and 125 sq.yds. bearing door No.11-103 by receiving a sum of Rs.9,000/-. Therefore, the said receipt also requires registration. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. However, it is open for the petitioner to establish the earlier partition by way of oral evidence. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. OCTOBER 14, 2011 Tsr.