ORDER : T. Rajani, J. 1. This petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 9.12.2014, passed in Memo GR No. 2799/14 in OS No. 267 of 2007 on the file of the Court of VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, by virtue of which the lower Court dismissed the petition, which was filed by the petitioner seeking for marking a document titled as 'oppudala patram' as a document. 2. Heard Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, Counsel for the petitioners, and Syed Kaleemullah, Counsel for the respondent. 3. In a Memo raising an objection for marking 'oppudala patram' as a document, by the impugned order the lower Court by considering the judgment reported in A. Krishna and another v. A. Arjuna Rao and another, 2004 (II) ALT 797, which held that Section 17(1) of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or operates to create declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards to or in immovable property shall be compulsorily registered, observed that in the case on hand the recitals of the impugned document, referred to above, convey the meaning that the said document, which is titled as 'oppudala patram' is only a memorandum of understanding between the plaintiff and his elder brother. Holding as such, it rejected the Memo which was filed by the petitioners. 4. The Counsel for the respondent now relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Roshan Singh v. Sile Singh, 1988 Law Suit 156 (SC), wherein it was held that mere agreement to divide does not require registration. If the writing itself effects a division, it must be registered. 5. A perusal of the document, which is sought to be marked, would show that it recites that all the properties are purchased by both of them only. It only recites that as and when his brother requests for partition, the same will be affected. The document also recites that the wives of both of them are quarrelling and hence, whenever he seeks for partition, it would affect the same. It is true that the terms are only in the form of an agreement to partition, squarely covered by the above judgment of the Apex Court. 6. The document also recites that the wives of both of them are quarrelling and hence, whenever he seeks for partition, it would affect the same. It is true that the terms are only in the form of an agreement to partition, squarely covered by the above judgment of the Apex Court. 6. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that the impugned order needs no interference. 7. With the above observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. 8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.