THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3549 of 2009 07.8.2009 Between: Tasneem Sultaha, W/o.Naseem And others … Petitioners and M.E.Rahman, S/o.Suleman And others … Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3549 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners herein are defendants in O.S.No.3 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Judge, West Godavari, Eluru. The suit was filed by first respondent herein (hereafter, plaintiff) for partition of properties. Defendants entered appearance and are opposing the suit. At the stage of trial, defendants filed I.A.No.2903 of 2008 under Order VIII Rule 1(A)(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive two documents, namely, oral gift/Hiba dated 13.12.1995 and settlement of family arrangement dated 12.2.1997. These two documents were sought to be brought on record alleging that at the time of filing written statement, those documents could not be traced as they were misplaced. Plaintiff opposed application contending that both the documents being compulsorily registerable, they cannot be received as evidence. Learned trial Judge dismissed application accepting the plea of plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order dated 06.4.2009, present civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. This Court has perused impugned order and the grounds urged in support of civil revision petition. As rightly observed by learned trial Judge, oral gift or Hiba executed by a Muslim does not require registration but, when Hiba is reduced to writing, it is certainly require registration. It is settled law. Similarly settlement of family arrangement, which involves acquisition or relinquishment of rights, is a registerable document, and therefore, both the documents are inadmissible in evidence. Learned trial Judge, therefore, came to correct conclusion in rejecting the application. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 07, 2009 YS