IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6053 OF 2010 Between : Meghanath Goud & 6-Ors. … Petitioners Defendants 1,5,6,13 to 16 V/s. Vanga Venkatalaxman @ Laxmi Devi … Respondents- Defendants 4 to 9 Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Ramana Sri N. Praveen Reddy The Court made the following : Order follows next page THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6053 OF 2010 ORDER : Aggrieved by the docket order dated 07-12-2010 passed in O.S.No. 85 of 2009 by the X-Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, relating to the admissibility of memorandum of understanding, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. It is stated that the document in question was drafted on the stamp paper worth Rs.100/- and it was executed between nine persons who are brothers and sisters. It is also stated that on perusal of the document goes to show that the parties are declaring their rights in unequivocal terms in respect of the properties, which are subject matter of the document. Further some of the parties have relinquished their rights in respect of the properties, which are subject matter of the suit in OS.No.26 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, Mahbubnagar district. It is also mentioned that the properties in OS.No. 26 of 1996 are the exclusive properties of defendants 8, 9, 13 and the others are not entitled to seek partition of the same. It is also mentioned at the fag end of the document that the terms of memorandum of understanding are binding on all the parties and admissions made are true and correct and it was executed with an understanding that it may be useful at the time of recording the compromise in the court. Further the document is in the nature of declaring the rights of parties, the learned Judge observed that the memorandum of understanding is inadmissible in evidence and it requires registration. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision is preferred by the defendants 1, 5, 6, 13 to 16. 3. It is represented that the application was dismissed on the ground that certain documents were about to be marked the court raised an objection that it is not admissible in evidence on the ground that it is unregistered document. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners contended that even an unregistered partition deed is admissible in evidence for collateral purpose but the learned Judge rejected the document and refused to receive the same in a suit for partition to establish the factum of severance if not for establishing the factum of partition. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision in CHINNAPAREDDIGARI PEDDA MUTHYALAREDDY V/s. CHINNAPAREDIGARI VENKATAREDDY AND ORS [1]., wherein it was held that unregistered partition deed though inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, can be looked into for establishing severance in status, though that severance would ultimately affect the nature of the possession held by the members of the separated family, who from thence onwards, hold it as co-tenants. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners as well as the respondents and upon perusing the record, the impugned docket order is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The unregistered document viz., memorandum of understanding can be marked for the collateral purpose. 5. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED. 01-07-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6053 OF 2010 Circulation No. 161 Date:01-07-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43 [1] ) 1969 (1) ALT-375