JUDGMENT : VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. 1. Present appeal has been filed by the original defendant to challenge the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge- II, Jalgaon in Civil Appeal No. 191 of 2003 dt. 10-08-2010; whereby the appeal came to be allowed. The said appeal was filed by the original plaintiffs/present respondents No. 1 and 2 for challenging the judgment and decree passed in RCS No. 34 of 1996 passed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Muktai Nagar, Dist. Jalgaon on 24-07-2003; whereby their suit for partition, separate possession and injunction was dismissed. 2. Plaintiffs have come with a case that agricultural land bearing Gat No. 15, admeasuring 1 H 47 R situated at village Edlabad, Dist. Jalgaon was owned by their father Sampat. Defendants are their brother and sisters. The said land (which has been more particularly described in para No. 1 of the plaint) was standing in the name of Sampat; however, Sampat was not keeping good health. He was not able to carry out any transaction. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were in service and No. 3 was too young. It was therefore, decided to mutate the name of defendant No. 1 to the suit land as a part of family adjustment. Accordingly, mutation was so effected and defendant No. 1's name alone came to be mutated vide M. E. No. 1091. Defendants No. 1 and 3 are residing in Gut No. 15. Another agricultural land bearing Gut No. 14 as well as Gut No. 15 were transferred in the name of Sampat in the year 1986 by Commissioner, Nasik vide M. E. No. 1393. Gut No. 14 is in possession of plaintiff No. 2. Sampat expired in 1991. Names of plaintiffs and defendants came to be mutated to the land Gut No. 14. However, defendant No. 1 avoided to make mutation in the name of all of them to Gut No. 15 on the pretext that he would carry out the mutation after the partition. The lands have not been partitioned amongst them. They all have equal share in Gut No. 15. Plaintiff No. 1 had gone to village Kurhe on 25-09-1996. He came to know that defendant No. 1 intends to sell the land. Thereafter, all the plaintiffs went to defendant No. 1 and requested him to effect partition. The lands have not been partitioned amongst them. They all have equal share in Gut No. 15. Plaintiff No. 1 had gone to village Kurhe on 25-09-1996. He came to know that defendant No. 1 intends to sell the land. Thereafter, all the plaintiffs went to defendant No. 1 and requested him to effect partition. Defendant No. 1 told that he is the exclusive owner of the land and thereby refused to effect partition. Hence, suit has been filed. 3. Defendant No. 1 has resisted the suit by filing written statement. It has been denied by him that the suit property is ancestral. According to him, suit property is the self acquired property of his father. He had purchased Gut No. 15 and had dug a well. He has also installed electric pump on the well. His father had made encroachment on Government land Gut No. 14 and thereafter it was regularized by Commissioner, Nasik in the name of plaintiff and defendant. Plaintiff's father had executed partition-deed, but later on it was cancelled and new partition-deed was executed. In fact, the said deed was executed as per the wish of his father. All of them are possessing and cultivating the lands as per the terms of said partition-deed. Land Gut No. 15 was given to them and Gut No. 14 was divided into 4 parts. He had looked after his father, born the expenses of marriage of his sisters. His father has transferred the land in his name. Plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the same. It is also contended that the suit is not within limitation. On these contentions, they have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Taking into consideration these rival contentions, issues came to be framed. Parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence on record. After considering the said evidence and hearing parties concerned, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit. Original plaintiff has then challenged the said judgment and decree before District Court, Jalgaon in RCA No. 191 of 2003. It was heard by learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon and the appeal has been partly allowed. It was declared that the plaintiffs and defendants have equal share in the suit properties, more particularly described in para 1 and 2 of the plaint. It was heard by learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon and the appeal has been partly allowed. It was declared that the plaintiffs and defendants have equal share in the suit properties, more particularly described in para 1 and 2 of the plaint. Further, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 2 to 4 have been held to be entitled to recover their share from defendant No. 1 in respect of property Gut No. 15. This judgment and decree is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard learned Advocate Shri. Girish Nagori for appellant/original defendant No. 1 and learned Advocate Shri. M. K. Goyanka for respondent No. 1/original plaintiff. It will not be out of place to mention here that by order dt. 07-01-2019, the appeal has been heard finally at the stage of admission itself with consent of both the parties. Perused the paper-book made available and record of the Courts below. Following points which can be said to be substantial questions of law arise for determination. (1) Whether Ex.115 document styled as Partition-deed, which is unregistered and unstamped, had created any legal right in favour of defendant No. 1? (2) Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to declaration, partition and possession of suit properties? REASONS : 6. The relationship between the parties is not disputed. Plaintiffs are the real brothers of defendants No. 1 to 4. It is also not in dispute that their ancestor Sampat had left behind suit properties, more particularly described in para 1 and 2 of the plaint. 7. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate for appellant that the first appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence properly. There was already a partition between the parties and the suit lands came to the share of Sampat. Therefore, they were his self-acquired properties. Sampat had partitioned the properties in the past, but it was cancelled and a new partition deed was executed. The properties being his selfacquired properties, Sampat was competent to distribute it amongst his sons. Ex. 115 was executed by him and the suit properties were given to defendant No. 1. Thereafter those properties came to be mutated in the name of defendant No. 1. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants No. 2 to 4 have any right in those properties. The suit properties were lawfully given to defendant No. 1. Document Ex. 115 was not such a document which required stamp duty and registration. Thereafter those properties came to be mutated in the name of defendant No. 1. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants No. 2 to 4 have any right in those properties. The suit properties were lawfully given to defendant No. 1. Document Ex. 115 was not such a document which required stamp duty and registration. There was no question of application of Section 17 or 49 of Indian Registration Act. Therefore, substantial question of law are required to be answered in favour of defendant No. 1/present appellant. 8. Per contra, learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 submitted that learned Trial Court had erred in not appreciating evidence properly. Mutation entries were considered as title document. It was not considered that Ex. 115 did require the stamp duty and registration. Therefore, plaintiff had preferred appeal. The First Appellate Court has considered the facts properly. The nature of the document Ex.115 has been rightly considered. If it is taken as partition deed then it required compulsory registration. He relied on the decision in Pilla Muniyappa and Ors vs. H. Anjanappa and Ors, (2011) AIR Karnataka 103 and Siromani Vs. Hemkumar and others, AIR 1968 SC 1299 wherein it has been held that, “If by virtue of document, partition of joint family property is effected by metes and bounds, and value of said property is more than Rs. 100/- then registration of such document is compulsory. In absence of such registration, such document is inadmissible to prove title of any of the coparcener to any property”. Defendant No. 1 has also not adduced any evidence to prove that parties had intention to separate from each other. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. 9. Here in this case, the relationship between the parties is not disputed. Further it is also not in dispute that the suit lands belonged to Sampat i.e. the father of plaintiffs and defendants. Under such circumstance, when the defendant No. 1 alone is claiming the exclusive ownership over the suit lands; then he must establish the same. In absence of the said plea of exclusive ownership of defendant No. 1; all the parties to the suit i.e. Brothers and sisters would get equal share in those lands after the demise of Sampat. Sampat expired in 1991. In absence of the said plea of exclusive ownership of defendant No. 1; all the parties to the suit i.e. Brothers and sisters would get equal share in those lands after the demise of Sampat. Sampat expired in 1991. According to plaintiffs, suit lands are ancestral property; whereas defendant No. 1 contends it to be self acquired property of Sampat. Defendant No. 1 claims his exclusive ownership on certain facts. (1) It was given to him in partition by Sampat by executing document Ex.115, (2) He had looked after his father till his death and he was cultivating it even during life time of Sampat. Out of the said two grounds; ground No. 2 will not give him exclusive ownership. Merely because he had looked after his father till his death and cultivated the land, will not confer title over him. He has very much relied on document Ex.115. The said document is named as “Vatani Patrak (Partition deed)”. Law is settled that only nomenclature of the document will not decide the nature of the same and it is required to be seen as to what is the exact nature of the document. The first and the foremost fact that is required to be seen is that the partition deed can take place only amongst co-sharers, co-owners or coparceners, as the case may be. Defendant No. 1 himself intends to contend that the suit lands are the selfacquired properties of Sampat. In that case, none of the plaintiffs or defendants can be said to be cosharers, co-owners or co-parceners. Therefore, there was no question of any partition between them. Sampat could have effected partition only in the event that it was ancestral property. Therefore, theory put forward by defendant No. 1 that it was self-acquired property of Sampat and he has effected partition by executing said document Ex.115 is contrary to each other and has no legal base. It can not derive any title to defendant No. 1. It was for the defendant No. 1 to prove the said document Ex. 115, when he was claiming exclusive ownership on the basis of the same. Perusal of record would show that said document has been exhibited during the course of writing judgment by the learned Trial Judge. It can not derive any title to defendant No. 1. It was for the defendant No. 1 to prove the said document Ex. 115, when he was claiming exclusive ownership on the basis of the same. Perusal of record would show that said document has been exhibited during the course of writing judgment by the learned Trial Judge. In fact, such practice is required to be deprecated because the other party who is disputing the said document would be deprived of put forth the objections, if any. Merely because the witness who had witnessed the said document has been examined, the learned Trial Judge has exhibited the said document. Learned Judge did not consider the fact as to why the said document was not exhibited during the course of evidence. If the said procedure would have been followed, the plaintiffs would have got opportunity to object its exhibiting. No doubt, still it appears that arguments were advanced in respect of effect of non-registration of the said document. 10. It can be seen from the decisions in AIR 1968 SC 1299 and AIR 2011 Karnataka 103 that registration of partition-deed is compulsory. Here in this case, when the defendant No. 1 had come with a case that suit lands were the self acquired properties of his father and he was transferring the same to somebody by way of said document, during his life time, then registration of such document was compulsory in view of Section 17 of Indian Registration Act. In view of AIR 1968 SC 1299 , in absence of registration, the said document Ex.115 was inadmissible to prove title of any one person in whose favour the properties is given. Therefore, defendant No. 1 can not be said to have established his exclusive title to the suit properties. Defendant No. 1 has also come with a case that the said document is evidence of partition between him and his brothers. Learned Trial Judge has considered the document Ex.115 for collateral purpose in view of Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. In order to invoke said provision, defendant will have to accept that suit lands were ancestral properties of their father. Secondly, perusal of said document would show that Ex.115 has not been signed by plaintiffs. The explanation is given that they were not available on the day when Ex.115 was executed. In order to invoke said provision, defendant will have to accept that suit lands were ancestral properties of their father. Secondly, perusal of said document would show that Ex.115 has not been signed by plaintiffs. The explanation is given that they were not available on the day when Ex.115 was executed. Defendant No. 1 has not come with a case that Ex.115 is the memorandum of partition. Perusal of contents of Ex.115 would show that it was the intention of those parties who were present to give effect to the document from that day. There is absolutely no mention that partition had already taken place in the past orally and it is now reduced into writing. Therefore, when it is not a memorandum of partition, and defendant No. 1 is coming with a case that it is partition deed, then it ought to have been signed by all of them, when they have also share in the lands. In absence of their signatures, the said document can not bind them. Defendant No. 1 can not claim exclusive ownership on the basis of said document against those persons who are not signatories to the document. 11. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant No. 1 has not come with a case that document Ex.115 is a will left by his father; therefore, the contents of that document can not be taken in the form of a will. Further, there is no compliance of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act by examining the attesting witness. Thus, the said document Ex. 115 can not be read as partition-deed or will. Hence, defendant No. 1 can not get exclusive ownership over the suit lands, by keeping his brothers and sisters aside. 12. Another fact to be noted is that the learned Trial Judge has placed reliance on the mutation entry No. 1091 (Ex. 68). The said mutation was effected on the basis of application by Sampat. The bare perusal of this mutation entry would show that it was effected as family arrangement and not in pursuance of document Ex.115. There is absolutely no mention about partition-deed in the said mutation. Defendant No. 1 has not clarified on which day/date the document Ex. 115 was executed. The bare perusal of this mutation entry would show that it was effected as family arrangement and not in pursuance of document Ex.115. There is absolutely no mention about partition-deed in the said mutation. Defendant No. 1 has not clarified on which day/date the document Ex. 115 was executed. Even if for the sake of arguments we accept that the name of defendant No. 1 is standing on revenue record of Gut No. 15 since 1977, yet, it will not create any exclusive right in favour of defendant No. 1. Recently in Civil Appeal No.1330 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.9394 of 2012) [Smt. Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Th. LR Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company & Ors. decided on 31-01-2019 has reiterated that, “This Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question”. Reference has been made to decisions in Sawarni(Smt.) Vs. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223 , Balwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Daulat Singh(dead) by L.Rs. & Ors., (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 591 ). 13. Taking into consideration the above-said discussion, question No. 1 above said is answered in the negative and question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative. The learned First Appellate Court has correctly assessed the legal point involved in this case. Though, much discussion has not been made on the facts of the case, which was expected, being the last fact finding Court; yet the ultimate result is appropriate. The learned Trial Judge had not appreciated the evidence and law properly; therefore, the learned First Appellate Court has rightly interfered. The first appeal was rightly allowed and suit has been rightly dismissed. Present second appeal deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Learned Advocate for appellants pray for continuation of stay granted earlier by this Court for a period of 8 weeks as the party wants to approach higher Court. Stay is operating as on today. No hurdle would be caused if it is extended for a period of 8 weeks. Hence, following order: ORDER : 1. Second appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. 2. Stay is operating as on today. No hurdle would be caused if it is extended for a period of 8 weeks. Hence, following order: ORDER : 1. Second appeal is hereby dismissed with costs. 2. Decree be drawn accordingly. 3. Stay granted by this Court earlier to the execution of decree granted by lower Court to continue for 8 weeks from today.