ORDER : N. Kumar, J. 1. The defendants have preferred these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Trial Court regarding the admissibility of unregistered Panchayath partition deed dated 05.10.2008. It was held that the said document is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and for non-registration. 2. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 4/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Devanahalli for a relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in all the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff is the sister of the defendants. It is her case that they constituted an undivided Hindu Joint Family. The schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants. 3. The defendants filed a written statement contesting the claim. They denied all the plaint allegations except the relationship of the parties. Their specific case is that on 05.10.2008, the defendants and plaintiff have entered into partition deed before the Panchayatdars and effected partition of the properties mutually. The plaintiff though not entitled to any share, on sympathetic grounds, she was given a portion of the land in Sy. No. 199/1 situated at Hunasemarenahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The plaintiff accepted the same and is enjoying the said land. Therefore, it was contended that as all the properties are already partitioned under a deed, the suit for partition is maintainable. 4. The Trial Court has framed several issues including issue No. 3, which is as under: Whether the defendants prove that on 05.10.2008, plaintiff and themselves entered into partition and suit properties were allotted to their share? 5. The plaintiff, in order to substantiate her claim has let in evidence. She has denied the case of the partition pleaded by the defendants. The defendants entered the witness box to substantiate their claim. It is in the course of their evidence, they tried to produce the unregistered Panchayat Parikath dated 05.10.2008 to substantiate their case of partition. The learned counsel for the plaintiff objected for marking the said document on the ground that it is not properly stamped and it is not registered and therefore, it cannot be marked. It is in the course of their evidence, they tried to produce the unregistered Panchayat Parikath dated 05.10.2008 to substantiate their case of partition. The learned counsel for the plaintiff objected for marking the said document on the ground that it is not properly stamped and it is not registered and therefore, it cannot be marked. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the rival contentions and after going through the contents of the said deed, taking note of Sections 34 and 35 of the Karnataka Stamp Act and also Section 17 of the Registration Act held that the said document is neither duly stamped nor registered. It held that the document is a compulsorily registerable document and therefore, it passed the impugned order impounding the document and also holding that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and non-registeration. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants have preferred these writ petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners assailing the impugned order contended that the document in question is not a partition deed. Prior to the execution of this deed, parties agreed for partition of the Joint Family Properties. It is after entering into such agreement, they have reduced that agreement into writing and therefore, as no partition had been effected under the deed, the said document is not compulsorily registerable and therefore, the finding of the Court below that it is inadmissible in evidence is erroneous. He also submitted that the document is duly stamped. In support of his contention, he relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante Vs. Anuradha Kante and others reported in (2010) 2 SCC 77 and contended that the impugned order runs counter to the said judgment. Indeed the Trial Court has taken into consideration yet another judgment of the Supreme Court, which has dealt with an unregistered deed of sale, which has no application to the facts of this case. For the aforesaid reasons, he submits that the impugned order requires to be set-aside. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent supported the impugned order. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the points that arise for my consideration in these writ petitions are as under: (i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the instrument in question is not duly stamped, is correct or not? 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent supported the impugned order. 8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the points that arise for my consideration in these writ petitions are as under: (i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the instrument in question is not duly stamped, is correct or not? (ii) Whether the finding of the Trial Court that the instrument in question requires registration, is correct or not? Point Nos. (i) & (ii) 9. The specific case pleaded by the defendants in the written statement is that the plaintiff and the defendants being brothers and sisters, they have effected a partition of all the Joint Family properties by way of an unregistered Panchayat parikath deed dated 05.10.2008 and therefore, the suit for partition is not maintainable. If the instrument is to be treated as a partition deed, the stamp duty paid on the said instrument is only Rs. 120/-. Therefore it is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in holding that it is insufficiently stamped and then impounding the said instrument under Section 33 of the Act and sending it to the Registrar for necessary action. The question for consideration is, Whether the unregistered panchayath partition deed is an instrument, which records a past transaction of partition or under the very same document the family properties are partitioned by metes and bounds. 10. In order to appreciate the said contention it is necessary to look into the contents of the document. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendants are parties to the instrument, which is dated 05.10.2008. According to the defendants, plaintiff also has affixed her LTM and the defendants have affixed their signatures. In the first paragraph of the said document, it is categorically recited that all the four persons i.e., the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have got this instrument written by consent. 11. Paragraph 2 of the said documents speaks about the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and defendants. In the first paragraph of the said document, it is categorically recited that all the four persons i.e., the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 have got this instrument written by consent. 11. Paragraph 2 of the said documents speaks about the enjoyment of the property by the plaintiff and defendants. Paragraph 3 stipulates that though all of them are living cordially, at present, as it is not certain whether the said relationship would continue in future and in order to avoid any future disputes, at the intervention of the elders and well wishers and on their advice they have effected a partition of all the family properties as set out in the said instrument. The properties allotted to the share of each one of them are clearly mentioned as A, B, C and D schedule properties. From the date of partition, the parties are entitled to take the properties, which have fallen to their respective shares and get the katha transferred to their name, pay all taxes due to the Government and enjoy the said properties exclusively. Each one of them would have no right over the properties, which are allotted to the others. From that day onwards, except the blood relationship, they have put an end to all relationships. This document is executed in the presence of elders and well-wishers. Thereafter, the schedules are given and in each schedule, properties which have fallen to the share of the parties are clearly set out and the said document is duly signed by the parties and the witnesses and also the panchayathdars. In fact according to the defendants, plaintiff has affixed her thumb impression. 12. Therefore, from the recitals in the instrument, it is clear that no partition took place earlier to 05.10.2008, may be they had agreed to effect the partition and particularly, they had agreed to the properties, which have to fall to the share of each one of them. But such an intention was given effect to, for the first time, in the deed dated 05.10.2008 specifying the properties, which have fallen to the share of each one of them by clearly mentioning the same in the schedule. The recital explicitly makes it clear that the partition is effected under the document in the presence of the witnesses and Panchayathdars on 05.10.2008. It is thereafter, except the blood relationship, no other relationship exists between the parties. The recital explicitly makes it clear that the partition is effected under the document in the presence of the witnesses and Panchayathdars on 05.10.2008. It is thereafter, except the blood relationship, no other relationship exists between the parties. Therefore, there is no ambiguity or doubt in the mind of any one that the Joint Family status comes to an end on execution of the said partition deed on 05.10.2008 and the properties, which are set out in the schedule to the said instrument, have fallen to their respective shares under the document. 13. It is in this background we have to look at the law on the point. A partition of immovable properties between coparceners or co-owners could be made orally and is not required to be in writing. In fact no particular form is prescribed for an instrument of partition. It may, therefore, be in any form, whether in the form of a Regular deed, or in the form of a mere receipt, or in any other form. But however, where a document is employed to effectuate a partition or any of the transaction specified in Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, such document must be registered, notwithstanding whether the transaction is one which the law does not require to be put into writing. In other words, though a partition of an immovable property can be effected orally by the co-owners or coparceners , if they choose to reduce into writing then, it comes under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act and is compulsorily registerable under the clause. Similarly, a family arrangement could be made orally. If made orally, there being no document, no question of registration arises. However, if the family arrangement is reduced to writing and it purports to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest of any immovable property, it must be properly stamped and duly registered as per the Indian Stamp Act and Indian Registration Act. Both in the case of partition as well as in the case of family arrangement which is nothing but a different nomenclature of partition, where the terms have been reduced in the form of a document, it is a question of fact in each case to be determined upon a consideration of the nature of phraseology of the writing and the circumstances in which and the purpose with which it was written. The nomenclature or the title given to the said document is not decisive. To understand the intention of the parties, the entire document has to be read as a whole and the intention of the party in entering into such document has to be gathered with reference to the words used in the instrument. The test to determine whether the document relating to a partition is a partition deed or merely a memorandum recording oral partition, it should be seen whether it was intended by the parties that the document was to serve as the repository of the arrangement arrived at by them. If the document was intended to be evidence of partition effected between the parties thereto, it is a partition and requires registration. The mere use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that transaction had taken place some time before. The verb in the past tense is usually employed simply with the object of making it clear that the thing mentioned in the document was an accomplished fact. It conveys the idea that the contract entered into between the parties has actually taken place. Where from the construction of the partition agreement and surrounding circumstances of the case it is clear that the intention of the parties was that the document should be the only repository and appropriate evidence of partition, the agreement if not registered is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and oral evidence to prove its terms, is not permissible to be adduced. Where a document itself brings about a partition, it must be registered. Where a document only evidences a past transaction, it is not a document which operates to bring about a division of properties. Whether a document does or does not evidence a past transaction, the interval of time between actual partition and coming into existence of the document may not be much importance, but to make it a mere record of a past transaction there should be a real dissociation between the transaction and the document. If the interval between the two is long, the dissociation may be readily inferred. Thus, a memorandum or acknowledgement of partition already effected orally does not require registration unless it be that by that very document the will to separate and the manner of the partition is to be deduced. If the interval between the two is long, the dissociation may be readily inferred. Thus, a memorandum or acknowledgement of partition already effected orally does not require registration unless it be that by that very document the will to separate and the manner of the partition is to be deduced. Where a perusal of the document itself shows that it does not profess to be anything more than an acknowledgement that the partition had been effected back, it does not create any right in any property and its registration was not compulsory. It is simply a piece of evidence supporting the allegation that the partition was effected at a certain date. But once it is held that a partition document has created title and interest of the parties in the property in dispute for the first time, then such writing/settlement would require registration under the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Act. Non-registration of this document would be hit by bar of Section 17 of the Act and would be inadmissible in evidence. But, whatever the form, an instrument of partition involving immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards must be registered, since it limits the rights and interests of those who seek the partition. It creates rights of sole ownership in some and extinguishes the rights of joint ownership of certain others. Therefore, a document which, by itself effects a partition and is signed by the parties and witnesses, in order to be binding on the parties as a deed of partition and to be the evidence of the terms of the partition requires registration. Such a document comes within the purview of Section 17(1)(b) of the Act inasmuch as that document creates, declares, assigns, limits or extinguishes any right, title or interest in immovable property. The intention of the Legislature is that all documents affecting immovable property should be registered. To be admissible in evidence of any transaction affecting immovable properties non-testamentary documents requires registration. However, a document which does not itself create a partition of property but merely recites a previous arrangement can always be admitted in evidence to prove the arrangement. But where it is clear on the face of the document itself that the value of the shares is more than Rs. However, a document which does not itself create a partition of property but merely recites a previous arrangement can always be admitted in evidence to prove the arrangement. But where it is clear on the face of the document itself that the value of the shares is more than Rs. 100/- and the whole tenor of it shows that the intention was that the parties should be the owners of their separate shares as from the date of the document and that being so, it is impossible to escape from the bar created by Section 17(1)(b) of the Act. 14. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the instrument in question do not record any oral partition which is said to have taken place earlier to the date of the instrument. On the contrary a reading of the document as a whole makes it clear in unequivocal terms that under the document, the parties have agreed to effect the partition by metes and bounds and accordingly, the property, which have fallen to their respective shares as set out in the schedule. It is from the date of partition, they have become exclusive owners of the properties mentioned in the schedule. It is only from that day except the blood relationship, all other relationships stood extinguished. Therefore, in fact in the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it has been held that as there was a concurrent finding on question of fact recorded by the Courts below that an oral partition had been effected, which had been subsequently reduced into writing as a memorandum and not as an actual deed of partition, such an instrument do not require registration. Therefore, from the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that if there is an oral partition effected between the parties and subsequently the same is reduced into writing as a memorandum of partition in the joint family as evidence of partition no registration is required. However, under the document, they actually effectuate a partition of all the family properties, then the said document requires to be registered compulsorily under the Act. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court has kept in mind the aforesaid legal position and has rightly held that the instrument in question is not a memorandum of recording a past transaction but under the document, parties are affected and therefore, it requires to be registered. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court has kept in mind the aforesaid legal position and has rightly held that the instrument in question is not a memorandum of recording a past transaction but under the document, parties are affected and therefore, it requires to be registered. For the aforesaid reasons I do not see any merit in these writ petitions. Hence, I pass the following order: (a) Writ petitions are dismissed. (b) The order passed by the Trial Court is affirmed. (c) In the event of the defendants willing to pay the duty and penalty, it is open to them to file an application before the Court for calculation of duty and penalty.