JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalore dated September 8,1989 by which he has held that the document executed by Jetha Ram, father of the defendant-non-petitioners, is not admissible in evidence. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-petitioners have f led a suit for declaration, possession and partition) of a suit Nohara. They filed a document titled as 'FAR-G ATI' executed by Jetha Ram, father of the defendant-non petitioners. An issue was framed on its admissibility. After hearing the parties, it has been decided against the plaintiffs by the learned District Judge by its order under revision. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has seriously erred in holding that the partition of the suit Nohra has been effected by this document and it is not a memorandum of partition which had earlier been effected. He relied upon Addanki Narayanappa and another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 and Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimhan and others, AIR 1966 SC 1836 . 4. There is no substance in this revision petition. He relied upon Addanki Narayanappa and another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 and Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimhan and others, AIR 1966 SC 1836 . 4. There is no substance in this revision petition. The relevant portions of the disputed documents run as under:- " laor 2013 esa ge tsBkth o ujlkth cgksjks ds jgokl dk edku vk/kks vk/k ckWaaVk Fkk rFkk ysu nsu dh ujlkth dks nh Fkh o tqgkjyth ls [kjhnk uksgjk eq>s tsBkth ds j[kk Fkk vkSj og tckuh r; fd;k Fkk fd ysus nsus dh olwyh ugha gqbZ rks tqgkjey th ls [kjhns uksgjs dks tsBkth o ujlkth ds okfil vk/kks vk/k djsaxsA lkeykrh ifjokj dh tks ysu&nsu Fkh mldh dksbZ olwyh ujlkth ;k muds yM+dksa rqe x.ks'kk] nsok dks ugha gqbZ gS blfy;s geus vkil esa cSBdj tqgkjey okys uksgjs dks tckuh vk/kks vk/k ckaV fy;k gSA ftlds eqrkfcd nf{k.k dh rjQ dk vk/kk fgLlk rqe x.ks'kk] nsok filjku ujlkth xkserhokyk czkgkze.k lkfdu n;kyiqjk ds j[kkA ml le; bldh fy[kki<+h ugha dh tk ldh vkSj yxrk gS Hkfo"; esa esjs xqtj tkus ds ckn rqe yksxksa o esjs yM+dksa ds vkil vkil esa fcuk fy[kk&i<+h ds ruko iSnk gks ldrk gS ftlesa vkil ds laca/k [kjkc gh gksdj gj rjg ls uqdlku gks ldrk gSA vr% tckuh caVokjk ds eqrkfcd ;g Qkjxrh fyf[kr esa dj nsrk gwWa nf{k.k esa Jhekyh Nksxkth oYn lLeth dk uksgjk yxrk gS ml rjQ dk vk/kk fgLlk rqe x.ks'kk o nsok dk gSA o jgsxk rFkk mRrj esa 'kkg 'ks"key izrkith iks[kkyk dk uksgjk gS ml rjQ dk vk/kk fgLlk eq> tsBkth o esjs ifjokj dk gS o jgsxkA Hkfo"; ysu&nsu dh olwyh gqbZ rks ;g vk/kks&vk/k ckaV dj yh tk;sxhA " It is clear from the above quoted portions of the document that in the oral partition which took place in Svt. 2013, the amounts of loan advanced to others by the joint family were given to Narsaji, father of the plaintiffs and the disputed Nohra to Jethaji, the father of the defendants and it was further agreed in between them that in ease of non realisation of the said amounts, this Nohra would be divided equally amongst them. It is not in dispute that the outstanding amounts were not recovered and subsequently Nohra was divided amongst them. Southern portion of the Nohra came in the share of plaintiff's father Narsaji and the Northern. It is not in dispute that the outstanding amounts were not recovered and subsequently Nohra was divided amongst them. Southern portion of the Nohra came in the share of plaintiff's father Narsaji and the Northern. portion to the defendants' father Jethaji. It is clear from this document that the specific half portions of this Nohra were allotted by this document itself. It is also not stated in the revision petition that oral partition which took place in Svt. 2013 these specific portions were earmarked to the parties. The words are very significant. They " vk/kks vk/k djsaxs] vk/kks vk/k ckaV fy;k gS ml rjQ dk vk/kk fgLlk rqe x.ks'kksa o nsok dk gS o jgsxk and ml rjQ dk vk/kk fgLlk eq> tsBkth o ifjokj dk gS o jgsxkA " leave no doubt that the Nohra was partitioned by metes and bounds by this deed. This was not done in the oral partition which took place in Svt. 2013. As such it cannot be said that this document simply recites the partition which took place in Svt. 2013. It is not a memorandum of partition. It is a document effecting partition of the suit Nohra. The provisions of Section 17(1)(b), Registration Act are clearly attracted in this ease. 5. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, this document has been executed on stamp paper of Rs. 3/- only. It is an instrument of partition as defined in clause (15) of Section 2 of the Stamp Act as amended by Rajasthan Act No. 16 of 1966. Sub-clause (iii) of this clause runs as under: "When any partition is effected without executing any such instrument, any instrument or instruments signed by the co-owners and recording, whether by way of declaration of such partition or otherwise, the terms of such partition amongst the co-owners." According to the Entry No. 45 of Schedule J. An instrument of partition requires the same duty as a bond for the amount of the valuation of the separated share. It has been observed in Kala and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 807 at page 813 para 10(4) as follows : "It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement arc reduced into writing. It has been observed in Kala and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, AIR 1976 S.C. 807 at page 813 para 10(4) as follows : "It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement arc reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement already been made either for the purpose of the record of for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2)(sic) (See. 17(1)(b)?) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable." 6. The facts of Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimham and others , (Supra) are quite different and distinguishable. It has been observed in para 21 as follows: "It is common case that this document did not bring about a division by metes and bounds between the parties. It did not also affect the interests of the parties in immovable properties in praesenti. What in effect it said was that the parties would continue to be members of the joint Hindu family and that Narasimha would manage the family properties as before, and that when they effected a partition in future Venkatramaiah would get 2 shares and Narasimha would get 3 shares in the properties then in existence or acquired thereafter. These was neither a division in status nor a division by metes and bounds in 1939. its terms relating to shares would come into effect only in the future if and when division took place. If so understood, the document did not create any interest in immovable properties in praesenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein. If so, it follows that the document was not hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act." Addanki Narayanappa v. Shaskara Krishnappa , (Supra) relates to a ease of a partnership dispute and not a partition dispute. If so understood, the document did not create any interest in immovable properties in praesenti in favour of the parties mentioned therein. If so, it follows that the document was not hit by Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act." Addanki Narayanappa v. Shaskara Krishnappa , (Supra) relates to a ease of a partnership dispute and not a partition dispute. It has been held in it that the interest of the partners of a family in the partnership asset is a movable property and the document evidencing the relinquishment of that interest is not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1), Registration Act.Consequently, die revision petition is summarily dismissed. *******