THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 3333 of 2011 ORDER: The 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent are the sons and the 1st respondent is the daughter of the 1st petitioner. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.64 of 2007 in the Court of II Additional District Judge, Ongole for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The petitioners herein resisted the suit, on the ground that the partition was already effected during the lifetime of late Chinnappa Naidu, husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioners sought to rely upon a document, dated 05.05.2001, which is said to be the gist or summary of partition, which has already taken place. The 1st respondent raised an objection as to the admissibility of the document. Through its order, dated 12.07.2011, the trial Court upheld the objection, by placing reliance upon a judgment of this Court in G.Udaykiran Reddy vs. G.Ramakrishna Reddy and others[1]. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri K.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.Manmadha Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The petitioners herein sought to rely upon an unregistered document, in support of the plea that partition has taken place in the family on earlier occasion. In case, the document brought about the partition by itself, it was certainly required to be registered. A perusal of the document discloses that detailed reference is made to the allotment of shares to the 1st respondent and her brothers, 2nd petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein. Their father Sri Chinnappa Naidu is said to have died in the year 2001 and the document in question was executed bringing in the 1st petitioner i.e., the mother into the fold. It appears that the share that was allotted to Chinnappa Naidu was allocated to the 1st petitioner and that the rest of the arrangement in favour of the 2nd petitioner and the respondents herein is in tact. The truth or otherwise of the documents can certainly be gone into during the course of trial. However, once it emerges that the document is not the one through which the partition was brought about for the first time, cannot be treated as a deed of partition. It deserves to be treated as a summary or gist of prior partition. I n G.Udaykiran Reddy’’s case, this Court maintained a clear distinction between the document, which brings about severance of status of the parties by itself on the one hand and a document, which contains the recitals about what has already taken place as to the division of properties. The document in question falls into the second category. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court shall receive the document in evidence subject to proof. __________ 14.10.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 3333 of 2011 Date: 14.10.2011 JSU [1] 2011(3) ALT 600