JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.3.2009 whereby the learned court below held that the document Annex.7 dated 14.4.1973 on the basis of which the present petitioner-plaintiffs claimed their title over the suit land and prayed for injunction against the defendant is a partition deed which requires registration in accordance with Section 17 (1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act 1908 and, therefore, the same cannot be admitted in evidence without such registration. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs Mr. Vijay Bishnoi relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Roshan Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 881 and in the case of N. Khosla v. Rajlakshmi (dead) and Ors., (2006) 3 SCC 605 submitted that the document in question Annex.7 in this writ petition dated 14.4.1973 merely records a factum of partition which had taken place in the past and a mere documentation of such partition is only a memorandum of partition which document does not require registration and, therefore, the learned court below has erred in rejecting the same to be admitted in evidence without registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. He drew attention of the Court towards certain stipulations made in the said document which indicates its recording of past understanding between the family members of one Kalyan Singh whose sons are the parties to the suit before the learned trial court. 3. On the other hand Mr. Shanbhoo Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant relying on the decision of this Court in case of Rukmani Devi & Anr. v. Nand Kishore through its legal representatives and Ors., 2006(1) RLW 341 submitted that the document itself effects the partition and, therefore, creates rights between the parties and by virtue of the same it amounts to partition deed which requires registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act and, therefore, the learned court below was justified in holding the same to be registrable. 4. Having heard learned counsels and after perusing the said document dated 14.4.1973, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has erred in holding the said document to be compulsorily registrable. 4. Having heard learned counsels and after perusing the said document dated 14.4.1973, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has erred in holding the said document to be compulsorily registrable. The legal position in this regard is settled and it is like this "It is well-settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or serving ownership and causes a changes 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." vide S.C. decision in Roshan Singh & Ors. v. Zile Singh & Ors. (supra). 5. This settled legal position draws a fine legal distinction between two types of documents and it depends upon the construction of the document concerned itself whether it amounts to a mere memorandum of partition or a deed of partition falling in either of the categories to apply Section 17 (1)(b) of the Registration Act. 6. In the opinion of this Court, the document Annex.7 records a factum of partition which has already taken place and parties have agreed to record the same into writing to avoid possible future disputes. The words " nLrkost fd;k x;k gS " in the preamble of said document is one such pointer. Therefore, the said document in the opinion of this Court can be held to be inadmissible in evidence without being compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. 7. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.3.2009 is set aside. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******