JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-8-2010 passed by 2nd Addl. District Judge, Barwani in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2009, whereby learned Court below has prevented the petitioner to exhibit the document during the course of examination-in-chief of petitioner, present petition has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession, which was contested by respondent No. 4 and others. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the issues and fixed the case for recording of evidence. At the time of evidence document dated 5-4-1975 was tendered in evidence, upon which an objection was raised by the respondent No. 4 to the effect that since the document is a deed of partition and is not duly stamped and also unregistered, therefore, same could not be admitted in evidence. Upon the objection raised by respondent No. 4 learned Court below passed the impugned order against which present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel submits that the document dated 5-4-1975 is not a partition but is an arrangement of partition. It is submitted that language of the document itself indicates that partition took place between the members of the family earlier and was reduced in writing by the said document. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Roshan Singh vs. Zile Singh, reported in AIR 1988 SC 881 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to distinguish between family arrangement and partition and it was held that if a document is only a memorandum of family arrangement then its registration is not necessary. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of K. G. Shivalingappa vs. G. S. Eswarappa, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 189 , wherein in a case where part of recital in memorandum speaks of relinquishment of all rights in favour of one of heir by other heirs in respect of house in question, it was held that it cannot be termed to be a family settlements. 4. Mr. B. K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Court below in passing the impugned order. 4. Mr. B. K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that no illegality has been committed by learned Court below in passing the impugned order. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Rukya Bai vs. Munni Bai, 2004(2) MPLJ 92 wherein part of recital in memorandum speaks of relinquishment of all rights in favour of one heir by other heirs of deceased in respect of house in question, this Court held that it cannot be termed to be a memorandum of family settlement as it is a deed relinquishing right and title, therefore document requires compulsory registration. It is submitted that in view of aforesaid position of law, the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and the same be dismissed. 5. From perusal of record it is evident that when the document was tendered in evidence at the time of statement of petitioner Krishnabai and the learned Court below upon the objection did not accept the document in evidence only on the ground that since document came in force from the time of its execution, therefore it is not a memorandum. It appears that learned Court below has not at all examined the recital of document. In the facts and circumstances of the case the order impugned herein cannot be allowed to sustain. In view of this, the petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside with a direction to the learned Court below that learned Court below shall examine the recital of document minutely and shall decide the objections afresh keeping in view the position of law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.