ORDER 1. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the order of the Revenue Board dated 1-5-2012. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- The petitioners claim is that the father of petitioners, namely, Prahlad and his brothers Raghunath and Keshav were owners of the land bearing survey Nos. 386 and 387, situated in Village Kutdhan, Patwari Halka No. 24, Tehsil Sabalgarh, District Morena. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 got their names mutated in revenue record on the said survey numbers. When the petitioners came to know about the said mutation, they preferred an appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), which was registered as Appeal No. 45/ 2008-09. The Appellate Court initially granted temporary injunction but ultimately dismissed the appeal by order dated 4-12-2009 on merits. Feeling aggrieved with the order of SDO aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, which was registered as Appeal No. 28/2009-10. By order dated 4-2-2010, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the present petitioners, set aside the order of SDO and remitted the matter back to the Tehsildar to pass orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties. The respondents herein filed a revision before the Board of Revenue, which was decided by impugned order dated 1-5-2012. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the father of the petitioners, namely, Prahlad and Keshav and Raghunath were brothers. They were co-owners of the property. Keshav died in the year 2000 and as per family partition deed, the land was required to be mutated in favour of the petitioners. A civil suit is also pending in the Court of Civil Judge Class 2, Sabalgarh and, therefore, Tehsildar has committed an error in not noticing the petitioners. 4. Shri R.K. Soni, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 110 of M.P. Land Revenue Code (MPLRC), it was obligatory for the Tehsildar to notice all persons appearing to him to be interested and in absence thereof the mutation proceedings are vitiated. He submits that the Appellate Authority has rightly set aside the order of SDO and Board of Revenue has committed an error in interfering in the matter. 5. He submits that the Appellate Authority has rightly set aside the order of SDO and Board of Revenue has committed an error in interfering in the matter. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties, during the course of arguments, fairly admitted that core issue to be decided in this matter is whether under Section 110 of the MPLRC, the petitioners can be treated to be "person interested" and if petitioners are not noticed, what is the effect of the same. Shri R.K. Soni, in support of his contention, heavily relied on the document at Page 34 (A) and submits that this document dated 3-6-1984 shows that there was an oral partition which took place earlier and as per this, the petitioners have acquired right on the land in question. He relied on Guljarilal Jain Vs. Ravikant Shirke 2010(3) JLJ 16 and Suresh Kumar Agarwal and others Vs. State of M.P. and others 2011(3) MPLJ 91 . Learned Counsel for the petitioners criticised the order of Board of Revenue, whereby the petitioners were not treated to be persons interested. He submits that the aforesaid document at Page 34 (A) makes it crystal clear that there was an earlier oral partition and, therefore, said document was not required to be registered. Aforesaid judgments were cited in support of this contention. In addition to aforesaid, Shri R.K. Soni heavily relied on the finding of the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division in Para 4 of his order wherein it is mentioned that the defendants have taken a stand that the partition between Keshav Prasad and Prahlad took place on 3-6-1984. Keshav Prasad died on 28-3-2000 and Prahlad died on 20-4-2007. By placing heavy reliance on the aforesaid stand, it is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the document at Page 34 (A) is admitted by the present respondents and, therefore, as per the said document petitioners have acquired a right and, therefore, the person interested as per Section 119 of MPLRC. 6. Per contra, Shri Bararu supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Shri Bararu submits that petitioners have not taken any pains to get the document at Page 34 (A) registered nor they made effort to get the revenue records straight. In other words, it is stated that the petitioners have not taken any steps for correction of entries in the relevant revenue record in their favour. Shri Bararu submits that petitioners have not taken any pains to get the document at Page 34 (A) registered nor they made effort to get the revenue records straight. In other words, it is stated that the petitioners have not taken any steps for correction of entries in the relevant revenue record in their favour. By strongly refuting the stand of Shri Soni, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that a careful reading of order (Annexure P-5), shows that the defendants had not accepted the factum or existence mentioned at Page 34 (A). He submits that in alleged admission mentioned in Annexure P-5 there is a mention of partition on 3-6-1984, but there is no mention of document of Page 34 (A). On the contrary, he submits that as per the stand recorded by the Appellate Court in Annexure P-5, partition took place on 3-6-1984 whereas as per the stand of the petitioners and as per Page 34 (A), the partition took place earlier orally. Thus, it cannot be said that factum of existence of Page 34 (A) is established and, therefore, there is no partition deed in the eyes of law. Apart from this, he submits that the petitioners have filed a civil suit, wherein they have prayed for various reliefs. They have although filed the copy of civil suit in this proceeding but did not approach this Court with clean hands and did not inform this Court that the said civil suit was subsequently amended. By drawing the attention on the amended relief Clause 19 (a), Shri Bararu submits that later on the suit was amended and it was prayed that the petitioners have a preferential right. Thus, the question whether the petitioners have a preferential right or any other right is already subject matter of challenge before the Competent Trial Court and no interference is warranted. Apart from this, he submits that the Court below has rightly given a finding that by an unregistered document no right or title is accrued in favour of the petitioners. The property is above Rs. 100/- and, therefore, it was required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The SDO gave a finding that no efforts were made by the petitioners for getting their names entered in the revenue records. The property is above Rs. 100/- and, therefore, it was required to be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The SDO gave a finding that no efforts were made by the petitioners for getting their names entered in the revenue records. The document at Page 34 (A) is written on a plain paper and it is an unregistered document, which does not provide any right in favour of the petitioners. The finding is reversed by the Appellate Court on the assumption that the factum of existence of Page 34 (A) is not in dispute. However, a careful reading of the stand of the defendants in Annexure P-5 shows that there is no admission regarding existence of the said document. There is only a statement which shows that the partition took place on 3-6-1984. This statement, if examined in juxtaposition to the document Page 34 (A), would show that the document refers to some earlier oral partition. Thus, it is not the case of the petitioners that partition took place on 3-6-1984, on the contrary their stand is that partition took place much prior to it. 9. Apart from this, all parties to the alleged partition have not put their signatures in Annexure P-8 [Page 34 (A)]. The Board of Revenue, in the considered opinion of this Court, has rightly held after perusal of the record that on 26-1-2008 advertisement was issued by the Tehsildar, no objections are received by any party within the time framed and thereafter, the said authority had rightly mutated the names of the respondents. The petitioners have failed to show that they have acquired any right or title on the land in question. The petitioners have already filed a civil suit for the relief in question. 10. Although Shri Soni relied on the judgments of this Court in cases of Guljarilal Jain 2011(3) MPLJ 91 and Suresh Kumar Agarwal 2011(3) MPLJ 91 (supra), the said judgments are based on different fact situations and cannot be applied in the present case. He relied on a recent order of this Court delivered in Smt. Shakuntalabai Vs. Chatur Singh and others 2013(1) MPHT 198 : Writ Petition 5269/2012. He relied on a recent order of this Court delivered in Smt. Shakuntalabai Vs. Chatur Singh and others 2013(1) MPHT 198 : Writ Petition 5269/2012. In the said case, this Court interfered because it was found that the petitioner therein was interested party and, therefore, proceedings under Section 110 of Tehsildar were found erroneous. Apart from this, on perusal of the original record in the said matter it was found that there is no mention as to when advertisement was issued, when notices were given to the persons interested etc. Thus, there was a serious procedural irregularity and due process was not followed. On both counts, i.e., petitioner was interested and due process was not followed, interference was made. In the present case, Board of Revenue has rightly held that Page 34 (A) (Annexure P-8), should have been registered. 11. I also found force in the argument of Shri Bararu that a careful reading of Page 34 (A) shows that the rights were relinquished to some extent in favour of Prahlad. In that event, the partition deed should have been compulsorily registered. I find force in the argument on account of the judgment of this Court Smt. Rukayya Bai Vs. Smt. Munni Bai and another 2003(3) MPHT 422 . The relevant portion reads as under :- "It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case, memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any right in immoveable properties." 12. In such a case, memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any right in immoveable properties." 12. Apart form this, it is apt to quote the relevant portion of Page 34 (A), which will determine the nature of this document:- ^^esjk ,oa HkkbZ izgykn ,oa d`r/kku dh Hkwfe es ls gS ftl ij vkt rd HkkbZ izgykn [ksrh djrs gS lcyx<+ okys edku ,oa HkkbZ izgykn vius fgLls lfgr cjr jgs gS ftles HkkbZ izgykn vkSj eS f’k{kd gksdj Xokfy;j es vius cPpks lfgr jgrk gw¡A blfy, eq>s Xokfy;j ds edku dh vko’;drk gSA vius fgLls dh lcyx<+ okys edku ,oa d`r/kku ekSts dks HkkbZ izgykn dks vkt lkSaidj viuk fgLlk HkkbZ izgykn ds fgr R;kx jgk gw¡A rFkk esjk fgLlk edku [kkrs dh tehu ds cnys es HkkbZ izgykn esjs fy, IykV dz; edku cuok dj nsaxsA esjk vkt ds ckn lcyx<+ okys edku ,oa d`r/kku ekSts dh [kkrs dh tehu esjk vf/kdkj lekIr le>k tkos rFkk vkt ds ckn esjs fgLls dk edku ,oa d`r/kku [kkrs dh tehu ij HkkbZ izgykn dkfct gksdj ekfyd gksaxsA Hkfo”; es bl laifRr ij esjk ,oa esjs okfjlkuks dk dksbZ ljksdkj ugh gksxkA esjs ejus ds ckn esjk okfjlku vxj dksbZ vkifRRk djrk gS rks mls >wBk ,oa feF;k le>k tkosA^^ In Narayan Sakharam Patil Vs. Co-operative Central Bank, Malkapur AIR 1938 Nagpur 434, the Division Bench of this Court has held that mere lists of property do not form an instrument of partition, and therefore, does not require any registration. However, what is required to be determined whether these documents are mere lists or in themselves purport to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest. In a property which is admittedly over Rs. 100 of value, if any right is created, declared, assigned, extinguished etc., registration is necessary. The same view is followed in Roshan Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others AIR 1988 SC 881 . The principle of law laid down is the same, i.e., nature of the document which will determine whether it was required to be registered. 13. Applying the aforesaid tests on the aforesaid document would show that certain rights are extinguished and few are created in favour of the other brothers. A microscopic reading of document 34 (A) shows that rights are relinquished/extinguished/created and declaration in this regard is made. 13. Applying the aforesaid tests on the aforesaid document would show that certain rights are extinguished and few are created in favour of the other brothers. A microscopic reading of document 34 (A) shows that rights are relinquished/extinguished/created and declaration in this regard is made. Thus, the document aforesaid is not only a list of events of earlier partition, but in fact and in effect is a document which created extinguished rights etc. Thus, it should have been registered. I find no legal flaw in the order of the Board of Revenue wherein it is held that in absence of registration of this document, no rights are created in favour of the petitioners. Since no rights are created, the petitioners, by no stretch of imagination, can enter into the shoes of a "person interested", and therefore, they were not required to be noticed by the Tehsildar. This finding of Board of Revenue is in accordance with law and does not require any interference from this Court. The petitioner although has relied on certain judgments including the judgment in Suresh Kumar Agarwal 2011(3) MPLJ 91 (supra), but a detailed examination of this judgment would show that it is based on the aforesaid judgment of Nagpur Bench in Narayan Sakharam Patil AIR 1938 Nagpur 434 (supra). This Court has not deviated from the principle of law laid down by the Nagpur Bench. 14. Considering the aforesaid, no error can be found in the order of Board of Revenue. Petition sans substance and is hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed.