ORDER : P.K. JAISWAL, J. 1. Shri Sameer Athawale, Article, Advocate for the petitioner (plaintiff)Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate for respondent No. 1, 2 and 3. 2. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - plaintiff is praying for setting aside of order dated 25.4.2016 passed by the trial court whereby, the learned trial court has held that the recital Annexure P/5, cannot be termed to be a memorandum of family settlement and the aforesaid document required compulsory registration. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P/5, being a memorandum dated 21.5.2008 of family settlement need not be required to be compulsorily registered nor the same speaks of relinquishment of right by remaining sons of Ramchand son of Modiram, nor it is a deed relinquishing a right of title. He has drawn my attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kante v. Anuradha Kante and Ors. , reported as (2010) 2 SCC 77 , Rukayya Bai v. Munni Bai and Anr. , reported as [ 2004 (2) M.P.L.J 92 and M. Venkataramana Hebbar (dead) by LRs v. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and Ors., reported as (2007) 6 SCC 401 and submitted that an oral partition has already been effected, which was subsequently reduced into writing as a memorandum and not as a actual deed of partition. The registration of deed of family settlement was not necessary. The trial court wrongly applied the principle laid down by the M.P. High court in the case of Rukayya Bai v. Munni Bai (supra) and erred in law in holding that Exhibit P/5, cannot be termed to be a memorandum of family settlement and required compulsory registration. 4. Per contra, Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the law is well settled, if we go through the terms of memorandum (Annexure P/5), the same has been prepared after the family arrangement has already been made and, therefore, under Section 17 of the Registration Act, the document required compulsory registration, the learned trial court rightly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Roshan Singh and Ors . v. Zile Singh and Ors. , reported as AIR 1988 SC 881 and Rukayya Bai v. Munni Bai (supra) and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. v. Zile Singh and Ors. , reported as AIR 1988 SC 881 and Rukayya Bai v. Munni Bai (supra) and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Recital of Annexure P/5 are as under :- xzg O;oLFkk ls caVokjk ys[k eu ds esa jkepUn firk eksMhjke th tkfr tSu vk;q 75 o"kZ yxHkx fuoklh MhdSu okMZ dzekad 4 rg0& tkon ftyk & uhep e0iz0 dk LFkkbZ fuoklh gksdj dkQh o`) gksdj pyus fQjus esa Hkh vleFkZ gwWaA rFkk esjs rhu iq= gSA esjs LokfeRo dk edku xzke MhdSu cl LVsUM uhep flaxksyh jksM+ ij fLFkr gSA ftldk cWaVokjk esus vius rhuksa iq=ksa esa fd;k gS ftldk o.kZu fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- ;g fd esjs lcls cM+s iq= fgEerjke dks xzg O;oLFkk ds caVokjs vuqlkj fgEerjke ds fgLls esa Hkou dz0 tks okMZ dz0 4 uhep flaxksy jksM+ ij jkeizlkn th e.Mkor ds edku ds nf{k.k fn'kk esa fLFkr gSA 2- ;g fd esjs nwljs uEcj ds iq= dk LoxZokl gks pqdk gS o mldh txg esjh iq= o/kq foeyk nsoh csok ikjley th tSu ds fgLls esa ubZ nqdkuksa esa iwoZ esa jkLrk dqa, ij tkus dk o if'pe esa uhep flaxksyh jksM+ o mRrj esa izeksn dqekj dh nqdku o nf{k.k esa daojyky th xksjkor fd nqdku vkfn of.kZr prqFkZ lhek ds chp esa cus gq, dejs o nqdkusa o [kkyh iM+h gqbZ tehu vknh foeyk nsoh ds fgLls esa vkbZ gSA 3- ;g fd esjs rhljs uEcj ds iq= izeksn dqekj ds fgLls esa iwoZ esa dqa, ij tkus dk jkLrk o if'pe esa uhep flaxksth jksM+ o mRrj esa eq> jkepUnz dk edku o nqdku rFkk nf{k.k esa foeyk nsoh ds fgLls dk edku o nqdku vkfn fLFkr gSA mijksDr of.kZr prqFkZlhek esa fLFkr edku nqdku o [kkyh iM+h tehu izeksn ds fgLls esaa vkbZ gSA 6. The aforesaid recital clearly speaks of properties allotted to the respective parties. The document does not contain the recital of past events. From the opening word of the document it is quit obvious that the documents contain the recital of the present event and does not contains the recital of the past events. Sence of the matter is whether the deed is a part of partition, transaction or contains merely an incidental recital of the previously completed transaction. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of the past transaction. Sence of the matter is whether the deed is a part of partition, transaction or contains merely an incidental recital of the previously completed transaction. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of the past transaction. It is equally well settled that a mere list of properties allotted at a partition is not an instrument of partition. Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act lays down that a document for which registration is compulsory should, by its own force, operate or purport to operate to create or declare some right in immovable property. A partition may be effected orally; but if it is subsequently reduced into a form of document and document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. 7. In the present case, admittedly, there was a partition of properties effected in 2008. Part of recital speaks of relinquishment of all rights in favour of one heir by other heirs in respect of the properties in question. Thus, I am of the view that the learned trial court has rightly held that documents required compulsory registration. No case to interfere order impugned dated 25.4.2016 passed by the IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Neemuch in C.S.No.14-A/2014 (Annexure P/6) as prayed is made out. 8. W.P. No. 3901/2016, filed by the petitioner has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.