THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P.No.72 of 2006 Date: 15.07.2010 Between: Koyyalamudi Subba Rao .. Petitioner AND Thathina Venkata Durgam and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR C.R.P. No.72 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner filed an application in E.A.No.339 of 2003, under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C., in E.P.No.78 of 2002 in O.S.No.39 of 1994 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The first respondent herein, being the decree holder in the said suit, obtained attachment of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.39 of 1994. Being the brother of the judgment debtor, second respondent herein, the petitioner stated that he was the exclusive owner of an extent of Ac.1.00 cents out of the suit schedule property under the unregistered partition deed dated 16.07.1968. The petitioner therefore sought raising of the attachment and exclusion of his extent of one acre from the execution proceedings. As the respondent-decree holder raised an objection with regard to the admissibility of the unregistered partition deed, the executing Court heard the counsel for the parties on that aspect. By its order dated 02.11.2005, the executing Court held that the said document was inadmissible. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present C.R.P. By order dated 24.01.2006, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.78 of 2002 in O.S.No.39 of 1994. Heard Sri S. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder. The executing Court relied upon the judgment rendered by a Larger Bench of this Court in Chinnapareddigari Pedda Muthyalareddy v. Chinnappareddigari Venkatareddy and others[1] wherein it was held: “In our view where a partition takes place, the terms of which are incorporated in an unregistered document, that document is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked for the terms of the partition. It is in fact the source of title to the property held by each of the erstwhile coparceners. That document, though unregistered, can however be looked into for the purpose of establishing a 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.” In the light of the law laid down by this Court as long back as in the year 1969, which still continues to hold the field, there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the executing Court. The petitioner seeks to rely upon this unregistered document to assert his exclusive right and claim over the extent of one acre. The unregistered document of partition deed dated 16.07.1968, can at best be relied upon only to prove the severance of status, but the division of the joint property by metes and bounds recorded therein cannot be given any legal sanctity. The order dated 02.11.2005 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem in E.A.No.339 of 2003 in E.P.No.78 of 2002 in O.S.No.39 of 1994, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The interim stay granted on 24.01.2006 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 15.07.2010 Isn [1] 1969 (1) AWR 396