P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel. ( 2 ) THE short question involved in the present CRP is the admissibility of a document filed partition list dated 10-4-1969. The decree-holder in EP No. 327 of 1998 in OS No. 156 of 1986 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had filed the aforesaid E. P. seeking delivery of items shown in the list of properties in terms of Order 21, Rule 35 CPC and at that juncture the judgment-debtors 6 to 8 had raised an objection on the ground that they are the owners of the property having got the same in partition with their brothers and they have produced the document a partition list dated 10-4-1969 and the revision petitioner-decree-holder had raised an objection relating to the marking of the said document on the ground that it is not a partition list, but it is an out-and-out deed and the same is compulsorily registrable and liable for stamp duty penalty also. The Court below, after discussing the contentions of the respective parties, had arrived at a conclusion that the objection taken by the revision petitioner-decree-holder is not sustainable and the said document is admissible in evidence and aggrieved by the said order dated 20-7-2000, the present CRP is filed. ( 3 ) SRI Vijay representing Mr. Krishna Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had contended that the Court below had erred in coming to the conclusion that the document is only a partition list, but in fact it is a partition deed, which is compulsorily registrable and is it also an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act and hence liable for levying Stamp Duty Penalty also. ( 4 ) SRI Rajkumar representing Mr. Dhanamjay, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the document is only a partition list and even as per the recitals in the document, there was partition among the parties on 1-3-1969 and subsequent thereto a partition list was reduced to writing on 10-4-1969 and hence it is only a partition list and not a partition deed and no registration is required under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that since this is a document of the year 1969, the question of paying stamp duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act also would not arise. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing both the Counsel at length, I have gone through the recitals of the document in question. In the document dated 10-4-1969 it is recited that there was partition amongst the parties on 1-3-1969 and on that day itself each sharer had taken their respective shares and had been enjoying the same. On the strength of these recitals, it is contended that it cannot be tenanted as a partition deed but it is only partition list, which does not require registration. No doubt, the nature of the document and the signatures appearing on the document appear to be fresh. But, however, the Court below had observed on this aspect that this is not the stage where the genuineness or otherwise of the document is to be considered, since, at this stage, the Court is concerned with the objection raised by the decree-holder-revision petitioner relating to the marking of the said document. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, in fact, had not seriously canvassed about the aspect of the Stamp Duty and Penalty since the document is of the year 1969. Whether the document is old one or afresh document created for the purpose of defeating the decree, are ail matters which have to be decided at the appropriate stage. In M. Venkatasubbaiah v. M. Subbamma and Ors. , AIR 1956 Andhra 195, the learned single Judge of this Court held that the partition list stating that certain properties were allotted to a member, registration is not necessary under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In Kanamathareddi Kanna Reddy v. Kanamatha Reddy Venkata Reddy, AIR 1965 AP 274 (FB), the Full Bench of this Court while dealing with an unregistered partition deed held that an unregistered partnership deed cannot be received as evidence of the separate allotment of and declaration of exclusive right and title to specific items of properties in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant. But the existence as a fact of a prior partition will non-suit a plaintiff who comes to the Court with a suit for fresh partition. But the existence as a fact of a prior partition will non-suit a plaintiff who comes to the Court with a suit for fresh partition. The circumstance that the earlier partition was evidenced by an unregistered partition deed will not under proof of the factum of that petition by other evidence inadmissible under Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, because this section excludes oral evidence only in proof of the terms and not of the existence as a fact of a contract, grant or other disposition of property. In Nani Bai v. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge, AIR 1958 SC 706 , while dealing with the aspect of partition and severance of joint status, the Apex Court at page No. 712 had held as follows:the question, therefore, is whether those documents "purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right , title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred of the handed rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property," within the meaning of Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act. No authority has been cited before us in support of this contention. Partition in the Mitakshara sense may be only a severance of the joint status of the members of the coparcenary, that is to say, what was once a joint title has become a divided tittle though there has been no division of any properties by metes and bounds. Partition may also mean what ordinarily is understood by partition amongst co-sharers who may not be members of a Hindu coparcenary. For partition in the former sense, it is not necessary that all the member of the joint family should agree, because it is a matter of individual volition. If a coparcener expresses his individual intention in unequivocal language to separate himself from the rest of the family, that effects a partition, so far as he is concerned, from the rest of the family. By this process, what was a joint tenancy has been converted into a tenancy in common. For partition in the latter sense of allotting specific properties or parcels to individual coparceners, agreement amongst all the coparceners is absolutely necessary. By this process, what was a joint tenancy has been converted into a tenancy in common. For partition in the latter sense of allotting specific properties or parcels to individual coparceners, agreement amongst all the coparceners is absolutely necessary. Such a partition may be effected orally, but if the parties reduce the transaction to a formal document which is intended to be the evidence of the partition, it has the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property is allotted by partition and is, thus, within the mischief of Section 17 (1) (b), the material portion of which has been quoted above. But partition in the former sense of defining the shares only without specific allotments of property, has no reference to immovable property. Such a transaction only affects the status of the member or the members who have separated themselves from the rest of the coparcenary. The change of status from a joint member of a coparcenary to a separated member having a defined share in the ancestral property, may be effected orally or it may be brought about by a document. If the document does not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, that is to say, the partition in the latter sense, it does not come within the purview of Section 17 (1) (b), because so long as there has been no partition in that sense, the interest of the separated member continues to extend over the whole joint property as before. Such a transaction does not purport or operate to do any of the things referred to in that section. Hence, insofar as the documents referred to above are evidence of partition only in the former sense, they are not compulsorily registrable under Section 17, and would, therefore, not come within the mischief of Section 49 which prohibits the reception into evidence of any document "affecting immovable property". It must, therefore, be held that those document have rightly been received in evidence for that limited purpose. In Roshan Singh and others v. Zile Singh and Ors. , AIR 1986 SC 881, while dealing with the distinction of un-registered partition it was held that subsequent memorandum of partition embodying factum of partition, such memorandum was only family arrangement and its registration is not necessary. In Bhaggal and Ors. v. Rangi Lal and Ors. , AIR 1986 All. In Roshan Singh and others v. Zile Singh and Ors. , AIR 1986 SC 881, while dealing with the distinction of un-registered partition it was held that subsequent memorandum of partition embodying factum of partition, such memorandum was only family arrangement and its registration is not necessary. In Bhaggal and Ors. v. Rangi Lal and Ors. , AIR 1986 All. 163 , while dealing with the partition deed and the memo of partition, the learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court held that the test to determine whether the document relating to a partition is a partition deed or merely a memorandum of an oral partition and whether it was intended by the parties that the document was to serve as the depository of the arrangement arrived at by them and if the document was intended to be evidence of the partition effected between the parties thereto, it is a partition and requires registration and there is a distinction between a mere recital of a fact and something which in itself creates a title and the deed in the instant case did not create any title in favour of any person but merely recorded in the partition list what had happened and so was no registrable. In Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh and Anr. , (1996) 9 SCC 379, the Apex Court held that the memorandum recording past oral partition of joint Hindu family property as a family settlement does not require to be registered. ( 6 ) COINING to the facts of the case, as per the recitals of the document in question dated 10-4-1969, there is already a partition amongst the parties on 1-3-1969 itself and this list was reduced to writing on 10-4-1969 evidencing the past partition. As rightly observed by the Court below in the impugned order the genuineness or otherwise of this document may have to be decided at the appropriate stage. Hence, in view of the findings recorded above, the CRP is devoid of merits and accordingly, the CRP is dismissed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.