JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been preferred against decree dated 15.1.1980 passed by II Additional District Judge Pratapgarh in Regular Suit No. 38 of 1973 through which the suit was decreed. The appeal has been filed by four out of five defendants in the Suit which was instituted by respondent No. 1, Asharfi Lal. Defendant No. 5/ respondent No. 2, Shyam Lal supported the case of the plaintiff respondent No. 1. All the six parties in the suit were brothers and sons of Gazidin. Gazidin had two wives. Plaintiff respondent No. 1, defendants appellants No. 1 and 2, and defendant No. 5/ respondent No. 2 were from his first wife and defendants appellants No. 3 and 4 were from second wife. The suit was filed for partition of plaintiff’s one sixth share in three properties described as items No. 1, 2 an 3. Item No. 1 consisted of Ahata situate at Paltan Bazar village Belhaghat. Regarding this item learned counsel for the appellants during arguments stated that his clients had agreed for giving one sixth share to the plaintiff in this property. Item No. 2 consisted of a pucca house No. 41 situate at village Balipur Katra Gulab Singh Road. The third item around which the main dispute between the parties revolves consists of a double storied house and a shop situate on Plot No. 656, Belhaghat. 2. Plaint Case : According to the plaint allegations in brief the family was joint in the life time of father of the parties Gazidin, that the entire family was residing in House No. 41, Belhaghat Katra Gulab Singh Road which also contained a sweet meat shop. In Para-4 of the plaint it is stated that as the family grew, plaintiff and defendant No. 5 under mutual arrangement started residing separately in two parts of house No. 41, however no partition took place and ancestral business continued jointly. Gazidin died on 27.4.1973 at the age of 65 years hence each brother on his death became entitled to one sixth share in the properties, that the property mentioned as item No. 3 at the foot of the plaint was purchased and constructed with the joint family fund and all the parties were in possession thereof. Gazidin died on 27.4.1973 at the age of 65 years hence each brother on his death became entitled to one sixth share in the properties, that the property mentioned as item No. 3 at the foot of the plaint was purchased and constructed with the joint family fund and all the parties were in possession thereof. In Para-6 of the plaint, it was further pleaded that in case property in dispute or part thereof was found to be in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 still the same be treated to be joint family property as defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had no independent business and Gazidin purchased the property from joint family funds as benami. In Para-7, it was stated that for some time before his death Gazidin due to old age and illness (Asthama) was under the influence of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 hence Gazidin instead of purchasing the property of item No. 3 in his own name purchased the property in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 or their wives and plaintiff came to know about that afterwards. In Para-8 it was stated that Gazidin had left behind cash and movable properties also which were in possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and suit for partition of the same and accounting would be filed afterwards. 3. Written Statement : Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed one written statement and defendant Nos. 2 and 4 filed another written statement. However, there was not much difference between both the written statements. The main defence was that Gazidin from his own funds constructed property at Item No. 2 (House No. 41, Balipur Katra Gulab Singh road) in which the entire family was residing, that plaintiff and defendant No. 5 much before June, 1964 had started earning and separated themselves and plaintiff established his shop of sweet meat near Kachehri (court building) and defendant No. 5 also started separate business, that in the beginning of 1964 disputes started arising in the family, hence a family settlement was arrived at through which plaintiff and defendant No. 5 finally separated themselves from the family and a registered deed in respect of partition in between Gazidin, plaintiff and defendant No. 5 was executed on 9.7.1964. It was further stated that in the house No. 41 where family was residing, plaintiff and defendant No. 5 each got one sixth separate share. Plaintiff was given specific share towards south and adjacent to that towards north, share was given to defendant No. 5 and the remaining 4/6th share was allotted to defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and plaintiff and defendant No. 5 were also given Rs. 1264/- in cash and Gazidin separated from all the sons and that since before 1964 Gazidin due to old age and illness became incapable of doing any business. It was further pleaded that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 started a small sweet meat shop and from the income of the said shop they acquired the land over which property mentioned in item No. 3, a double storied house consisting a shop situate in Plot No. 656 was constructed by them, that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 made new construction in the northern 4/6th part of item No. 2, that in the reconstruction of 4/6th part of item No. 1 and in the purchase and construction of item No. 3, Gazidin did not make any contribution, that by execution of the deed of partition in 1964 joint family separated, and that before the death of Gazidin, his wife and daughter had died. 4. Replica : Thereafter, plaintiff filed replica. In the plaint, absolutely no mention had been made about the registered deed of 1964 relating to partition, however in replica that aspect was dealt with. In Para-43 of the replica, it was stated that Gazidin got executed the deed and took the signatures of plaintiff and defendant No. 5 and thereafter got that registered and told the plaintiff that it was being done in order to avoid daily disputes between the wives of different sons, however, Gazidin told that no one was being given separate share. Similarly, in Para-46, it was stated that after the deed of 1964 was written and without informing the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 about the contents of the deed, they were made to sign the same by Gazidin and deed was executed under the undue influence and pressure of Gazidin hence it was illegal. 5. From the above it is quite clear that plaintiff did not deny his signatures over the deed of 1964 relating to partition. Trial Court framed the following 10 issues : 1. 5. From the above it is quite clear that plaintiff did not deny his signatures over the deed of 1964 relating to partition. Trial Court framed the following 10 issues : 1. Whether there was any partition in between Gazidin and his sons as alleged in para 20 of the written statement? 2. Whether there was any family settlement as alleged in paras 20 and 21 of the written statement, if so, is the plaintiff estopped from challenging it? 3. Whether the plaintiff is co-owner in all or any of the property in suit? If so, what is his share? 4. Whether the plaintiff was a member of the joint family of Gazidin till his life time as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? If so, its effect? 5. Whether the defendant No. 1 to 4 were members of the joint family of Gazidin till his death? 6. Whether the deed dated 9.7.1964 is binding on parties? 7. Whether the suit is undervalued and Court fee paid is insufficient? 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged in para 32 of the written statement? 9.Whether the property mentioned in list 2 was re-moddelled and extended by Gazidin or by the defendants 1 to 4? 10. Whether the property mentioned in list 3 was acquired by Gazidin or by defendants 1 to 4? Issue No. 7 was decided as preliminary issue and the suit was held to be undervalued. Accordingly, plaintiff got the plaint amended by inserting the valuation as found by the trial Court and paid requisite Court fees thereupon. In this appeal no argument has been raised in respect of issue No. 1. Issue No. 8 related to maintainability of the suit which was decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. Against the said finding also no argument has been raised in this appeal. In respect of issue No. 9 the trial Court held that the property mentioned in item No. 2 was acquired, constructed, remodelled and extended if at all by Gazidin himself. Issues No. 1 to 6 and 10 were tried and decided jointly. In this regard learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it was not proper for the trial Court to decide these 7 issues together. Issues No. 1 to 6 and 10 were tried and decided jointly. In this regard learned counsel for the appellants has argued that it was not proper for the trial Court to decide these 7 issues together. The trial Court decided these issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit for partition of his and 1/6 share in all the three properties and 1/6 share of the defendant No. 5 was also partitioned in all the three properties on payment of requisite Court fees at the time of preparation of final decree. 6. Parties led oral evidence. Plaintiff examined himself as PW 2, Ajai Kumar Khattri as PW 1 and Ori Ram as PW 2. Defendants examined 7 witness Jawahar Lal defendant No. 2 as DW 1 Moti Lal defendant No. 4 as DW 2 and Ram Kishore Misra, Mohamad Husain, Sher Bahadur Singh, Ramji Lal and Kalloo as D.Ws. 3 to 7. 7. The defendants appellants No. 1 to 4 filed original partition deed dated 9.7.1964 as exhibit A- 41 and 2 sale deeds both dated 10.6.1964 exhibit A-38 to A-40 through which site of the property mentioned in list 3 was purchased in the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4/appellants also filed number of receipts relating to purchase of brick, cement, iron and other material in their own names. Exhibit 17 is copy of sale deed filed by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant through which adjoining property was sold in favour of the wife of defendant No. 3 and 4 and in the boundary of the sold property Sanjay Hotel belonging to Gazidin was mentioned. 8. In the form of other documentary evidence plaintiff filed extract of voter list exhibit 1 water tax bill 1973-74, final Assessment Order of sales tax 1962-65 and 1966-69 as exhibit 2, 3 and 4. Water tax Assessment bill of the year 1971-72 as exhibit 5 Assessment Order of Income Tax Department for 1962-63 as exhibit 6 inquiry report in respect of ration card exhibit 7 sale deed by Gazidin dated 15.1.1954 exhibit 8. House tax bills, water tax receipts of different years as exhibit 9 to 16 and notice under Section 156 of Income Tax Act as exhibit 18. 9. House tax bills, water tax receipts of different years as exhibit 9 to 16 and notice under Section 156 of Income Tax Act as exhibit 18. 9. Defendants 1 to 4/appellants apart from the above three deeds filed as exhibit A-1 sanction of building plan by Nagar Palika Pratapgarh, exhibit A-2 copy of statement of Gazidin before Assessment authorities exhibit A-3 copy of written statement filed by plaintiff in another suit before Munisif Pratapgarh. Defendant 1 to 4 filed total 71 documents which related to electricity bill for the year 1950, Khatauni of Village Belghat 1977 -79 Assessment order for the year 1968 to 1973 in respect of Hira Lal, Jawahar Lal, Moti Lal, Dasarath Prasad defendant Nos. 1 to 4/appellants copy of affidavit of Gazidin filed before the Assessment authority of Municipal Board. Exhibit A-13 to A-38 were cash memos,bills and receipts for payment of building material including Iron Brick and Cement by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. 10. In this appeal the following three points are involved and required to be decided: 1. Whether partition deed dated 9.7.1964 is binding upon the plaintiff and defendant No. 5? 2. What is the effect of partition deed dated 9.7.1964 whether it amounted to severance of plaintiff and defendant No. 5 from the joint family? 3. Whether the property at item No. 3 was acquired by Gazidin benami in the name of his four sons defendant No. 1 to 4? 11. Point No. 1 It has been held by the Supreme Court in A.S. Shah v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1983 S.C. 409 after referring to various judgments and text books on Hindu law written by Mulla, Gupte and Mayne that the father in exercise of his superior right or of his right as Patria potestas is entitled to bring about a complete disruption of the joint family and to effect a complete or even partial partition of joint family properties and it may be done even if sons are minor, however, the restriction is that the partition shall not be unequal. It has further been held that if some member of the joint Hindu family wants to assert that the partition is not equitable or the properties are not divided equally and fairly by the father then he will have to get the partition set aside. It has further been held that if some member of the joint Hindu family wants to assert that the partition is not equitable or the properties are not divided equally and fairly by the father then he will have to get the partition set aside. In the instant case there is no allegation by the plaintiff that the partition was unequal or unfair. The partition was never challenged by him on these grounds. Accordingly, even inspite of plaintiff and defendant No. 5 not agreeing to the partition effected through partition deed dated 9.7.1964, father was entitled to effect the partition. 12. In the replica plaintiff categorically admitted his signatures and the signatures of defendant No. 5 and their father on the partition deed. However he asserted that he and defendant No. 5 signed the deed without reading the same under the compulsion and undue influence of their father. Absolutely no particulars of coercion or undue influence as required by Order VI Rule 4 C.P.C. have been given in the plaint. In the oral evidence plaintiff stated that he was given to understand that by signing the document (partition deed) there would be benefit in sales tax and income tax. Benefit in Sales Tax and Income Tax could be obtained only by partition. Moreover a person can be permitted to assert that he agreed to a particular transaction for a particular benefit and after getting the benefit, he must not be held to be bound by the transaction. 13. Plaintiff admitted that he had a shop in front of main gate of Collectorate Pratapgarh which was arranged by his father for him. However, he tried to assert that manufactured items were brought from the family shop in house No. 41 and he gave the income of his shop to Gazidin. However he categorically admitted in his cross examination that after the death of Gazidin he alone was utilising the income and running the shop and no other brother was having any concern with his shop (opposite collectorate). This is a very strong circumstance to support the partition. He also admitted that in respect of the shop in front of Collectorate, Pratapgarh litigation took place in which he alone was the defendant. This is a very strong circumstance to support the partition. He also admitted that in respect of the shop in front of Collectorate, Pratapgarh litigation took place in which he alone was the defendant. In the written statement which he filed in the earlier suit initiated by the Government in respect of the said shop against him he did not state that apart from him his brothers were also owners and partners. He admitted that in house No. 41 (item No. 2) there were 3 parts Northern, Southern and Central and in the southern portion he was residing and in the middle portion defendant No. 5 was residing and in the northern portion other four brothers defendant Nos. 1 to 4/appellants were residing and this arrangement was made 15-16 years before. He also admitted that all the three portions of the house No. 41 were having separate water and electric connection. Regarding Sanjay Hotel in the property at item No. 3 he stated his ignorance about the building material and from where it was purchased; he could not say whether hotel was registered or not and he stated that he had no interest in the building material purchased for constructing the same. Accordingly, from the evidence of the parties and their witnesses and documents it is amply proved that complete, effective separation of plaintiff and defendant No. 5 from the family, its property and business took place through the partition deed of 1964 and that also on their own desire and with their full consent. Consequently it is not proved at all that plaintiff and defendant No. 5 signed the deed of partition of 1964 without knowing its contents. 14. Moreover plaintiff and defendant No. 5 both are literate and there was absolutely no sense or occasion in signing the document (1964 deed) without reading the same. It has not been shown by the plaintiff that he was so obedient that merely on the basis of saying of his father he signed the document. This is not age of Ramayan. Such obedient sons have vanished. Shyamlal defendant No. 5 did examine himself. Until the death of his father plaintiff never bothered to question the deed which was registered document and copy of which could very easily be obtained by him. 15. The transactions are required to be reduced in writing for two reasons. This is not age of Ramayan. Such obedient sons have vanished. Shyamlal defendant No. 5 did examine himself. Until the death of his father plaintiff never bothered to question the deed which was registered document and copy of which could very easily be obtained by him. 15. The transactions are required to be reduced in writing for two reasons. Firstly minor details which slip from the mind after sometime may always be ascertained. Secondly, a party and signatory to the deed can not deny the transaction. (Knowledge through written material is unique quality of human beings which distinguishes them from other living creatures). If a document is registered then its genuineness is almost guaranteed. This is the purpose of evolving the procedure of registration. 16. The Court below laid which emphasis upon the fact that in the written statement and the evidence defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had given different types of versions regarding the partition of 1964. This was wholly irrelevant. When the transaction is reduced to writing, its details can be ascertained only and only from the document. Contents of a document may be proved by the document itself which is the preliminary evidence (Section 61, 62 and 64 of the Evidence Act). Accordingly, it is held that even in the absence of signatures of plaintiff and defendant No. 5 partition deed of 9.7.1964 would have been perfectly valid. It is further held that the said partition deed was signed by plaintiff and defendant No. 5 after knowing its content and plaintiff and defendant No. 5 have not been able either to plead properly or to prove that they were made to sign the said deed without understanding its contents. Accordingly, point No. 1 is decided in favour of appellants and against the plaintiff respondent No. 1. 17. Point No. 2 In the partition deed dated 9.7.1964 it was clearly mentioned that the four sons of Gazidin, (first party of the said deed) i.e. defendant Nos. Accordingly, point No. 1 is decided in favour of appellants and against the plaintiff respondent No. 1. 17. Point No. 2 In the partition deed dated 9.7.1964 it was clearly mentioned that the four sons of Gazidin, (first party of the said deed) i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were residing with him and were doing joint business with him and his two sons i.e. plaintiff (who was second party in the said deed) and defendant No. 5 (who was third party in the said deed) resided separately from him and were doing separate business and each of the other two parties had 1/6 share in the house at Gulab Singh Road (item No. 2) to the extent of 7’2" and that had been separated by erecting the walls and second and third parties would not be having any concern with the Northern portion. It was also mentioned under Clause A that if in future first party i.e. Gazidin acquired any property, second party and third party would not have any concern therewith. Under Clause B it was provided that parties had fully understood the accounts of the joint family and party Nos. 2 and 3 each was entitled to Rs. 632 which had been paid to them and for which they had executed the receipt. It was also provided that Second party and third party during life time and of party would not transfer the share given to them in the family house i.e. house No. 41. The said deed completely severed the joint status of the family. 18. Point No. 3 First of all plaintiff has not been able to prove that the property was purchased by Gazidin from his exclusive income in the name of his sons defendant No. 1 to 4. Absolutely no reason has been suggested by the plaintiff for adopting such course by Gazidin. Secondly, even if it is assumed that after the partition deed of 9.7.1964 Gazidin and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 his sons continued to do joint business from the shop in house No. 41 and property of item No. 3 was acquired and built from the income of the said business plaintiff and defendant No. 5 will not have any concern therewith. If was a joint family business then the joint family consisted of Gazidin and his four sons defendant Nos. 1 to 4. If was a joint family business then the joint family consisted of Gazidin and his four sons defendant Nos. 1 to 4. If through the partition deed of 9.7.1964 complete severance of the entire joint Hindu family had taken place then defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have proved that they were doing business from the shop in the property at item No. 3 and having good income therefrom. Permission to construct was granted in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as is evident from exhibit A-1 application dated 4.1.1969 granted by Executive Engineer P.W.D. Dated 23.12.1969. 19. The plaintiff and defendant No. 5 were having their separate businesses and defendant No. 1 to 4 were having joint business. Even if Gazidin was also involved in the said business still the plaintiff will not have any right therein. Accordingly, point No. 3 is also decided in favour of the appellants. The appeal is therefore substantially allowed, judgment and decree passed by the Court below in respect of properties at item Nos. 2 and 3 is set aside, suit of the plaintiff is dismissed in respect of these properties. However, the decree for partition of property at item No. 1 is maintained on the concession of the learned counsel for appellant. ——————