1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA No. 980/2009 in Writ Petition No.2093/2008 Gajanan s/o Nilkanthrao Admane Vs. Kusumbai w/o Nilkanthrao Chirwatkar and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. H. D. Dangre, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. A.P. Moharil, Adv. for respondent no.1. None for other respondents. CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE, J. Date of reserving the order: : 4/9/2009. Date of Pronouncing the order :11/9/2009. By this application, the applicant seeks review of order dated 8.9.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2093/2008 dismissing the petition challenging the order dated 20.2.2008 by Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. Wardha in Special Civil Suit No. 97/2002 by which the trial Court refused to admit in evidence the partition deed dated 6.4.1989 on the ground that the same was not registered and as such not admissible in evidence. The applicant is defendant no.3 in the above suit filed by respondent no.1 for partition, separate possession and permanent injunction. During the course of evidence, the applicant-defendant no.3 sought to produce deed dated 6.4.1989 executed by Nilkanthrao Admane and others partitioning the properties. The trial Court refused to admit the document in evidence on the ground that since the same was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act and was not registered, the same could not 2 be admitted in evidence. Writ Petition preferred against the said order was dismissed by this Court holding that since the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Act, the same could not have been admitted in the evidence in view of the Section 49 of the Registration Act. Mr. Dangre, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that deed dated 6.4.1989 is not a deed of partition but is a deed of family arrangement and, therefore, the same was not required to be registered and consequently the order passed by this Court dismissing writ petition deserves to be reviewed. He further submitted that in any case, learned Single Judge ought to have decided the objection at a final stage and ought not to have disallowed the applicant from producing the document in the course of the evidence. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following authorities:- (1)Digambar Adhar Patil V. Devram Girdhar Patil (died) and another: AIR 1995 SC 1728; (2) Bakhtawar Singh Vs. Gurdev Singh and another : (1996) 9 SCC 370; (3) Arvind s/o Yeshwantrao Deshpande Vs. State of Mah. and others : 2003 (3) Mh.L.J. 1039. (4) Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another : AIR 2001SC 1158; (5) Bama Kathari Path Vs. Rohidas Arjun Madhavi and another : 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 752. Per contra, Mr. Moharil, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submitted that deed dated 6.4.1989 is a deed of partition and it is neither a family settlement 3 or arrangement nor a memorandum of partition confirming prior oral partition between the parties and, therefore, no case is made out for reviewing the order passed by this court. He further submitted that the properties partitioned by deed dated 6.4.1989 are not coparcenery properties and, therefore, no fault can be found with the order passed by the trial Court as well as by this court dismissing writ petition. In support of his submissions, Mr. Moharil relied upon the following authorities:- (1)Ramesh s/o Rasiklal Suchak since deceased by his LRs. Pushpa Ben wd/o Rameshchandra Suchak and others Vs. Shyamsunder s/o Rajelal Suroshiya since deceased by his LRS. Ramkumari wd/o Shyamsunder Suroshiya and others : 2005 (2) Mh. L.J. 629; (2)Indramani Prasad Shukla and others Vs. Smt. Shakuntala and another : 2008 (4) Civil L.J. 511; (3)Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique and another Vs. Josephine Syla Dominique : 2008(4) Civil L J. 506 and (4)Luhar Tulsidas Narsibhai V. Vrajlal Lalji Veghela : AIR 2007 Gujarat 77. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I do not deem it necessary to refer to all the authorities relied upon by the parties in detail. What emerges from the 4 authorities cited by both sides is that it is not necessary that every partition should be effected by registered partition deed but the parties can enter into family arrangement, and if the members of Joint Hindu Family enter into a memorandum of partition pursuant to oral partition between the parties such a memorandum of partition is not required to be registered. However, if the members of Joint Hindu Family execute deed of partition partitioning the property by metes and bounds, such a deed requires registration. The question, therefore, which arises is whether by deed dated 6.4.1989 the parties have partitioned the properties or have only confirmed prior oral partition or entered into family settlement. I am in agreement with Moharil that perusal of the deed dated 6.4.1989 discloses that said deed of partition would effect the partition of the properties by metes and bounds among the co-owners mentioned in the said deed. The said deed cannot be termed as family settlement or memorandum of partition pursuant to oral partition. This being the position, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for review of the order dated 8.9.2008 passed by this Court. Insofar as the argument advanced by Mr. Dangre that objection ought not to have decided at the time of production of document is concerned, it is to be noted that this argument was not advanced by the counsel appearing for the applicant in Writ Petition No. 2093/2008. In any case, I find that the trial Court has not committed any 5 illegality or jurisdictional error by refusing to admit the document in evidence on the ground that the same was not registered. In view of the above, I find that no case has been made out for review of the order dated 8/9/2008. Consequently, the application is dismissed with costs in favour of respondent no.1, which are quantified at Rs. 1500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred only). JUDGE Ambulkar