Order Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This revision petition has arisen out of an order dated 15.4.1997, passed by Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Siwan in Title Suit No. 220 of 1992. During the course of evidence of the plaintiff, two documents were taken into evidence, but not marked as exhibits and as such, a petition was filed to get those documents being marked as exhibits, although vehement objection was there from the side of the opp. parties. The two documents relate to; one being an unregistered sale deed of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- and the other a memorandum of part parition between the parties. The first document on the face of it is not admissible document and, as such, when the same was relied for the purposes of position and situation only about the suit lands, the same was marked as Mark-X, for the purposes of identification so that the same may be used for collateral purposes. I do not find any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in refusing to mark exhibit the unregistered sale deed as Mark-X. Regarding the memorandum of partition, perhaps the learned court below has not considered the sharp difference between the memorandum of partition between co-sharers and the partition deed amongst the co-sharers. The partition deed is compulsorily registerable under the Registration Act, but a memorandum of partition may not be registerable depending upon the contents made therein. So such memorandum of partition might be exhibited as the same do not create any legal bar. 3. With this observation, this revision petition is disposed of and the learned court below shall act as per the observations, made above.