*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + C.R.P.No.5596 of 2009 %06-12-2010 #G. Udayakiran Reddy .. PETITIONER AND $ G. Ramakrishna Reddy & others. ...RESPONDENTS !COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri S. Venkata Subba Rao ^COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5596 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.166 of 2006 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. It was pleaded that the property has fallen to the share of his grand-father in a family partition, and subsequently his grand-father executed a gift deed dated 18-08-2004, in his favour, and delivered possession. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.331 of 2006, under Order XXXI Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. During the course of enquiry into the I.A., the respondents tried to rely upon a document, which according to them, was, a list of partition. The petitioner raised an objection as to the admissibility of that document. He pleaded that it is a deed of partition and that it cannot be received, since it was not registered. The trial Court heard the arguments on this aspect, at length, and passed a detailed order dated 10-11-2009, overruling the objection. Hence this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document in question is a deed of partition, through which, parties thereto brought into existence, severance of status, and in that view of the matter, it was required to be registered. He contends that the purpose, for which it is sought to be relied upon, cannot be treated as collateral, since the respondents intend to prove the factum of partition, by filing that document. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that an arrangement between the parties to the said document has already taken place, and through the said document, it was just reduced into writing. It is also his case that, even if the document is otherwise registered, it can be received for collateral purposes. The question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the deed of partition dated 27-05-2000, was required to be registered, or not, and whether it was admissible, at least, for collateral purposes ? The law in this regard is fairly well-settled. If a document, by itself, brings about severance of status, it is liable to be registered, under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act (for short ‘the Act’). On the other hand, if it simply contains recitals about what has already taken place, it partakes the character of notes of partition, or list of partition, and thereby, not required to be registered. Learned Junior Civil Judge has undertaken discussion, and the principles of law were correctly analysed, with reference to the decided cases. Learned counsel for the parties have made available, a copy of the document, dated 27-05-2000. A perusal of the same discloses that it was through that document, that the partition was brought about. Nowhere in the document it is mentioned that there was a prior understanding between the parties, or that the allotment of shares has already taken place. At more places than one, it is mentioned that the partition is being effected through that document itself. Therefore, it was required to be registered. The second aspect is, as to the admissibility. Proviso to Section 49 of the Act carves out an exception, as to the admissibility of the unregistered documents, which are otherwise required to be registered. One such exception is, when a document is sought to be relied upon, for collateral purposes. A purpose would be collateral, if it is other than the one, which the document itself serves. For instance, if the document is a sale deed, any purpose, which is other than the sale itself, can be treated as collateral. In the instant case, the document in question is a deed of partition. It can be looked into for any purpose, other than proof of partition. The respondents wanted to establish that, a partition of a particular type has taken place, under that document. Therefore, it is inadmissible even for collateral purposes. It is a different matter, if the respondents intend to rely upon it, for any other purpose. Hence, the C.R.P. is allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. The objection raised by the petitioner herein to the document in question is upheld. It is, however, made clear that, in case the respondents intend to rely upon the document for any purpose, other than proof of partition, the trial Court shall consider the same, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.06-12-2010. Note: Mark LR copies. KO*