ORDER Mahesh Bhagwati, J. 1. By way of his writ petition, the Petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 12th March, 2008, whereby the learned Additional District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur declined to admit documents Exs. 4 and 5 observing that they were unregistered and unstamped. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order. 3. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the impugned order, it is noticed that the Petitioner-Plaintiff was not allowed to exhibit two documents namely family settlement and a map annexed thereto on the ground that the same were not registered and duly stamped. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that it was not required for a settlement to be registered with the office of the Registrar as these document were simply a recitation of past events. He has cited a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh AIR 1988 SC 881 . He has prayed that in view of this judgment, both these documents can be allowed to be exhibited and thus, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has fairly conceded this fact that the documents can be exhibited. 5. In the case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: It is well-settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not require registration. The essence of the matter is whether the deed is a part of the partition transaction or contains merely an incidental recital of a previously completed transaction. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of a past transaction. It is equally well-settled that a mere list of properties allotted at a partition is not an instrument of partition and does not require registration. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of a past transaction. It is equally well-settled that a mere list of properties allotted at a partition is not an instrument of partition and does not require registration. Section 17(1)(b) 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. Two propositions must therefore flow: (1) A partition may be effected orally; but if it is, subsequently reduced into a form of a document, and that document-purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not registered, Section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. Secondly evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (2) Partition lists which are mere records of a previously completed partition between the parties, will be admitted in evidence even though they are unregistered to prove the fact of partition. 6. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12th March, 2008 is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to allow the Petitioner to file both these documents for their exhibition.