RSA No. 1037 of 198- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1037 of 1980 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2009 Santa Singh ...... Appellant Versus Udhe Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Harbhajan Singh Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.V.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for separate possession of certain land in the abadi deh of the village. Both the Courts have held that partition had taken place between the appellant and the respondents ( who are brothers) in the year 1943 and that documents Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 merely acknowledge the earlier partition between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following questions:- Whether the documents Ex.D1, D2 and D3 are required to be compulsorily registered? Whether if the documents Ex.D1, D2 and D3 are not registered, they have any documentary value in the eye of law? RSA No. 1037 of 198- 2 Whether the alleged partition amounts to partition of whole properties or it is a partial partition? Whether findings recorded by the learned courts below are sustainable in the eye of law? With regard to questions No. (i) and (ii) learned counsel has argued that a perusal of Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 shows that by these documents certain properties had been transferred by the appellant to the respondents for valuable consideration and thus they were required to be compulsorily registered and, in the absence thereof could not be read into evidence. In my opinion the findings of the courts below that these documents merely acknowledge the earlier partition cannot be faulted. The learned lower Appellate Court has particularly held that the heading of the document would not determine its true character but a complete reading thereof would have to be resorted to understand its full scope and on a complete reading of these documents it is clear that they are merely acknowledgment of the earlier partition which had taken place in the year 1943. With regard to questions No. (i) and (iii) there is no pleading or any evidence by the appellant that here was any other joint land between the parties which was not partitioned. Question No.(iv) is general question. In these circumstances I decide all the three questions against the appellant and consequently dismiss the appeal. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 21, 2009 sunita