ORDER 1. Plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 7.4.2016 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Class-II, Maheshwar. 2. Facts of the case in short are as under : The land bearing Survey No.8 (Area 3.946 hectares) of Village Akhipura Tahsil Maheshwar was owned by Late Venkat Rao. Venkat Rao was having two sons namely Mishrilal and Bahadurlal. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Mishrilal and defendants No.1 (a) to (e) are legal heirs of Bahadurlal who died during pendency of the suit. That Late Bahadurlal sold the land Survey No.8 (Area 3.946 hectares) to respondent No.2 by sale deed dated 20.10.2008 which gave cause of action to the plaintiffs to file the Civil Suit seeking relief that the sale deed dated 20.10.2008 be declared void and the defendants be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to interfere into his peaceful possession. 3. After notice the defendants filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint by submitting that the partition between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal has already been taken which was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of suit and by way of the said partition the land bearing Survey No.9 came into the share of defendant No.1 Babulal, therefore, he was having right to sell the same. During the evidence the plaintiffs tendered two documents. The first document dated 31.12.1996 namely a Receipt of Partition executed by “Bahadurlal” and second namely as “Batwara Patrak” signed and executed on 10.10.1990 by Bahadurlal and Mishrilal both. The respondents objected the same on the ground that the plaintiffs are trying to establish partition in evidence by way of these documents. Both the deeds are neither registered nor properly stamped, therefore, same cannot be marked as exhibit. 4. The plaintiffs submitted that the receipt dated 31.12.1966 cannot be treated as partition deed because it was signed by only Bahadurlal and the Batwara Patrak dated 10.10.1990 is memorandum of acceptance of partition done earlier which is not required to be registered nor stamped, hence it is admissible in the evidence. 5. 4. The plaintiffs submitted that the receipt dated 31.12.1966 cannot be treated as partition deed because it was signed by only Bahadurlal and the Batwara Patrak dated 10.10.1990 is memorandum of acceptance of partition done earlier which is not required to be registered nor stamped, hence it is admissible in the evidence. 5. Learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the parties has held that the Batwara Patrak dated 10.10.1990 is admissible in the evidence which is nothing but acceptance of partition done earlier but the receipt dated 31.12.1996 is not admissible into evidence as it has neither been registered nor properly stamped. 6. The plaintiffs have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.4.2016 by which the receipt of partition dated 31.12.1996 has been declared inadmissible into the evidence and sent for impounding. 7. Shri V.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the “Instrument of Partition” is defined under section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act and according to which whereby co-owners of the property divide or agreed to divide such property by way of instrument signed by the co-owners. Shri Jain emphasized that the receipt deed dated 31.12.1996 was signed by only Bahadurlal and not by Mishrilal, therefore, it cannot be treated as an instrument of partition amongst the co-owners. The so called receipt dated 31.12.1996 is not the deed by which the partition took place between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal but the partition had already been taken much prior to it and finally recorded in the partition deed dated 10.10.1990, therefore, the trial Court has committed error of law as well as fact by treating the document dated 31.12.1996 as a partition deed. 8. Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submits that the recital and contents of the documents are decisive and conclusive factors in its admissibility of documents. The contents of the deed dated 31.12.1966 clearly describes that partition took place between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal which has been finally recorded in the partition deed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgments passed in the cases of Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others, reported in 2014(1) SCC 618 , Mansingh v. Rameshwar, reported in 2010(2) MPLJ 140 and Karnatak State Khadi and Village Industries Board v. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in 2014(1) SCC 625 . 9. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgments passed in the cases of Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others, reported in 2014(1) SCC 618 , Mansingh v. Rameshwar, reported in 2010(2) MPLJ 140 and Karnatak State Khadi and Village Industries Board v. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in 2014(1) SCC 625 . 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. That the plaintiff has pleaded in the plaint that Late Ganpat Rao has expired 50-55 years back and his two wife Shantabai and Sushilabai died in the year 2001. The partition between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal took place during the lifetime of Shantabai and Sushilabai. In entire plaint, there is no description of Kabza receipt dated 31.9.2006 and partition deed dated 10.10.1990. The plaintiff has simply stated that during the lifetime of Shantabai and Sushilabai land bearing Survey No.10/8 has been partitioned between Mishrilal and Bahadurlal. 11. The photocopy of Batwara Patrak dated 12.1.1966 is not legible and incomplete typed copy is filed along with this petition but the language of this receipt clearly speaks that on today we are partitioning the property ^^vkt rkjh[k esa--------------------dj jgs gSA** This fact further establish from contents of Batwara Patrak dated 10.10.1990 in which it is mentioned that the land had been partitioned by the father in the year 1966. 12. Therefore, partition which took place in the year 1966 has finally been recorded in the partition dated 10.10.1990. The plaintiff did not gave exact date in the suit about the date of partition. 13. In case of Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, reported in AIR 1988 SCC 881, apex Court has held that an instrument of partition which operate or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Act, a mere recital of what has already been taken place cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registration of such registration. Para 9 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below : “9. Para 9 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below : “9. It is well settled that while an instrument of partition which operates or is intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst the parties to it, requires registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Act, a writing which merely recites that there has in time past been a partition, is not a declaration of will, but a mere statement of fact, and it does not require registration. The essence of the matter is whether the deed is a part of the partition transaction or contains merely an incidental recital of a previously completed transaction. The use of the past tense does not necessarily indicate that it is merely a recital of a past transaction. It is equally well-settled that a mere list of properties allotted at a partition is not an instrument of partition and does not require registration. Section 17(1)(b) 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. Therefore, a mere recital of what has already taken place cannot be held to declare any right and there would be no necessity of registering such a document. Two propositions must therefore flow : (1) A partition may be effected orally; but if it is subsequently reduced into a form of a document and that document purports by itself to effect a division and embodies all the terms of bargain, it will be necessary to register it. If it be not registered, section 49 of the Act will prevent its being admitted in evidence. Secondary evidence of the factum of partition will not be admissible by reason of section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872. (2) Partition lists which are mere records of a previously completed partition between the parties, will be admitted in evidence even though they are unregistered, to prove the fact of partition: See Mulla's Registration Act, 8th edn., pp. 54-57” ?� 14. In case of Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh and another, reported in (1996)9 SCC 370 , it has been held that memorandum recording past partition prepared consequent to a family settlement held not required to be interfered. 54-57” ?� 14. In case of Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh and another, reported in (1996)9 SCC 370 , it has been held that memorandum recording past partition prepared consequent to a family settlement held not required to be interfered. In case of K.G. Shivalingappa (Dead) by LRs and others v. G.S. Eswarappa and others, reported in (2004)12 SCC 189 , it has been held that if partition deed is reduced to writing in a formal document which is intended to be evidence of partition, it would be compulsorily have to be registered. However, the document did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, it would be outside the purview of section 7(1) (b) of the Registration act' 1908 . Para 13 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below: “13. In Nani Bai v. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge, it has been held by this Court that though partition amongst the Hindus may be effected orally but if the parties reduce it in writing to a formal document which is intended to be evidence of partition, it would have the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property was allotted in partition and thus the document would be required to be compulsorily registered under section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. However, if the document did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, it would be outside the purview of section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act. This decision was followed in Shiromani and others v. Hem Kumar and others, and Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, AIR 1988 SC 881 . In Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, after analysing the judgments, referred to above, this Court observed : "Partition, specially among the coparceners, would be a "Transfer" for purposes of Registration Act, 1908 or not has been considered in Nani Bai v. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge and it has been held that though a partition may be effected orally, if the parties reduce the transaction to a formal document which was intended to be evidence of partition, it would have the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property was allotted (by partition) and thus the document would all within the mischief of section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act under which the document is compulsorily registerable. If, however, that document did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, it would be outside the purview of that section. This decision has since been followed in Siromani v. Hemkumar and Roshan Singh v. Zile singh [( AIR 1988 SC 881 )].”� 15. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance over the definition of instrument of partition and according to him it should be executed and signed between the co-owners of the property and deed dated 31.12.1966 is signed by Bahadurlal. Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 i.e. definition of “instrument of partition” introduced in the stamp act by way of Act No.8/1975 w.e.f 15.5.1977 i.e. after 31.12.1966. That prior to 15.5.1977 of the documents by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or record under section 2(14) used to call as “Instrument”. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The trial Court has rightly dealt the document dated 31.12.1966 as in admissible in the evidence. Petition fails and dismissed.