1 S.A.No.430/09 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.430 OF 2009. _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 09.12.2010. 1. This is defendants' Second Appeal. The the present Respondents had filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal. The defendants have assailed the said judgment and decree in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Tripathi, learned counsel holding for Mr.N.S.Kadam, advocate for the appellants contended that after sale of some of the plots 2 S.A.No.430/09 jointly, there was a partition amongst the plaintiff and the defendants and the same was recorded in a Memorandum of partition dated 30.3.1990. The Courts below have wrongly interpreted the said document and have erroneously held that the said document required compulsorily registration U/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The said document does not require registration. For the said purpose, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of "Arvind S/o Yeshwantrao Deshpande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others" dt. 30.6.2003. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments delivered by both the Courts. It is not disputed that the plaintiff and defendants had jointly purchased the property bearing S.No.42/2 by registered sale deed. Some of the plots were also sold jointly. The defendants contend that thereafter on 30.3.1990, a Memorandum of Partition was recorded. Both the Courts have interpreted the said document to be a deed of 3 S.A.No.430/09 partition and not a Memorandum of partition. It has been specifically observed by the Courts below that it is by virtue of said document, partition was said to be effected. As such if by virtue of said document, the partition is effectuated, it requires registration U/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act. Moreover, the Courts have also observed that the said document was also not acted upon as no entries in any record was made, pursuant to the said document. The judgment relied by Mr.Tripathi, learned counsel in a case of "Arvind S/o Yeshwantrao Deshpande Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others" referred supra would not be of any assistance as it was a case wherein, a partition was effected in respect of a joint Hindu family property. In the present matter, three individuals have come together and jointly purchased the property which is said to be partitioned by a document and in that case registration of said document would be necessary. 4. In the result, the Second Appeal is 4 S.A.No.430/09 dismissed. However, there shall no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.09.12.2010. asp/office/sa430.09