wp6108.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6108 OF 2011 Yuvraj s/o Bhaurao Bhise and others ...Petitioners Versus Arun s/o Chandrakant Bhise and another ...Respondents ..... Mr. K.K. Kulkarni, advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Choudhari, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATED: 12TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioners are original defendants. The present respondents filed suit for partition and separate possession. D.W.3 was shown a document of partition. The objection was raised by the plaintiffs as the said document is unregistered it cannot be exhibited as it is inadmissible in evidence. The petitioners filed an application Exh. 181 for exhibiting the said document and allowing it to show to the witnesses. The trial court rejected the said application Exh.181. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 2 Shri K.K. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the document, which is styled as Watni Patra, in fact is a wp6108.11 -2- memorandum. Eve if it is admitted to be a document of partition, still it does not require registration as the same would not amount to transfer. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Digamber Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil, reported in AIR 1995 SC 1728 and a judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel, reported in AIR 1965 SC 866, so also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Arvind Yeshwantrao Deshpande v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004 (2) BCR 331. 3 Per contra, Shri S.S. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the document sought to be relied by the petitioners is in fact the partition deed. The same is inadmissible in evidence unless registered. The said document is compulsorily registrable as per Section 17 of the Registration Act. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Hriday Narain Choudhary v. Shyam Kishore Singh and others, reported in AIR 2002 SC 2526 and another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siromani and another Vs. Hemkumar and others, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1299. 4 I have perused the said document styled as “Watni Patra”. Perusal of the document shows that it is not a memorandum of wp6108.11 -3- partition, but it appears that the partition has taken place by virtue of the said document. The Apex Court in the case of Siromani Vs. Hemkumar and Hriday Narain Vs. Shyam Kishore Singh (referred supra) has held that unregistered partition deed is inadmissible in evidence. It is not disputed that the property is worth more than ` 100/-. In view of the said judgments, the said document would require registration. It being unregistered would be inadmissible in evidence. 5 Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel submits that even otherwise the petitioners can use the said document for collateral purpose. There is no impediment to accept the said argument of Shri Kulkarni. The document which requires registration if not registered can still be used for collateral purpose. 6 In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial court need not be interfered with. The petition is rejected. However, it is made clear that the petitioners can use the said document for collateral purpose and the trial court shall allow the petitioners to refer to the said document for collateral purpose. (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) rlj/ wp6108.11 -4-