Honble MUKHERJI, CJ. – This revision petition is directed against an order dated 4.5.95 as passed by the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No. 21/86, whereby the defendant- petitioners application about admissibility of a purported Deed of Partition which was unstamped and un-registered, has been rejected. (2). Plaintiff-non-petitioner sought to introduce a document in course of his oral testimony even though it was the plaintiff who sought partition by filing the present suit being Civil Suit No. 21/86. As and when an objection was raised by the defendant, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that it was not a contemporaneous deed of Partition but it was merely a Deed of Family Settlement which did not require affixation of necessary stamps under the Indian Stamp Act as adopted in Rajasthan, in respect of an instrument of partition and it need not be registered as well. Reliance in this regard was placed on a decision in Siromani vs. Hemkumar (1), to contend that in absence of such registration, even though it is inadmissible to prove title of any of the co-parceners to any of the property, but such document is admissible to prove intention of co-parceners to become divided in status. (3). Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant contended that there has not been appreciation of the question by the learned Distt. Judge in the four corners of the impugned order. (4). In Roshan Singh vs. Zile Singh (2), Supreme Court has made a distinction between partition of ancestral properties, which is evidenced by a subsequent memorandum of partition embodying the factum of partition and a Deed of Family Arrangement. As regards the memorandum of partition embodying the factum of partition, it was held that the memorandum was only a family arrangement and its registration was not necessary. Sec. 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 lays down that a document for which registration is compulsory should, by its own force, operate or purport to operate to create or declare some right in immovable property. Therefore, a mere recital of what has already taken place cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registering such a document. Therefore, a mere recital of what has already taken place cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registering such a document. It must be borne in mind that a partition may be effected orally but if it is specifically reduced into a form of a document and that document purports by itself to effect a division of the properties and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it is not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. The other rule postulates that evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of Sec. 91 of the Evidence Act. It must, however, be borne in mind that partition lists which are exchanged between the parties and which were more or less from records of previously completed partition between the parties, will be admitted in evidence, even though they are un-registered, to prove the factum of partition. The tests for determining whether a document is an instrument of partition or a mere list of properties, have been laid down by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court in many of their decisions. Mere list of properties does not form an instrument of partition and so, would not require registration. Whether these documents are mere lists or purports to `create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in the property, is a matter to be determined in each case. Even otherwise, such a docu- ment can be looked into under the provisions of Sec. 49 of the Registration Act which allows a document, which would otherwise be excluded, to be used as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by a registered instrument. In N. Varada Pillai vs. Jeevarathnammal (3), the Privy Council allowed, an unregistered Deed of Gift which required compulsory registration, to be used not to prove the Gift itself because by the said document no legal title passed but only to prove that the Donee thereafter held in her own right. Partition, unlike the sale or transfer or a Deed of Conveyance which consists in its essence of a single act, is a continuing state of facts. Partition, unlike the sale or transfer or a Deed of Conveyance which consists in its essence of a single act, is a continuing state of facts. It does not require any formality, and therefore, if parties actually divide their estate and agree to hold in severalty, there is an end of the matter. (5). In the present state of affairs, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter but to direct the court below to decide the admissibility of the document for whatever worth it is, looking to the entire surrounding circumstances which created the said document and which had the effect of continuity thereafter in the light of the evidence already adduced in the case and decide upon its admissibility at the conclusion of the trial. (6). In the result, the revision application stands disposed of with the elucidation of the law as mentioned above, even though no interference is called for at the present stage. No order as to costs.