ORDER : Vijaykumar A. Patil, J. This petition is filed seeking following reliefs: "Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Tarikere in O.S.No.144/2012 found at Annexure-H, allow this writ petition with costs and grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case." 2. Sri.Madhusudhana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondent No.4 filed a suit for relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and petitioner. In the said suit respondent Nos.1 to 3 also filed a counter-claim that they are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property and the sale deed executed by the husband of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4 is not binding. It is submitted that DW.1 in his evidence admits the execution of family settlement/panchayat parikath at Annexure-'G' and also admits his father's signature. However, the trial Court considering the objections of the defendants refused to mark the document at Annexure-'G' on the ground that the said document is an unregistered partition deed and it cannot be admitted in the evidence. It is submitted that bare perusal of the document at Annexure-'G' indicates it is merely a reproduction of the partition that has already taken place. It is further submitted that under the Annexure-'G', an already existing partition is just written which is not required to be registered. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed a counter-claim denying the partition already arrived and seeking for declaration that they are the owners of entire property measuring 2 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.93 of Anuvanahalli Village, Shivani Hobli, Tarikere Taluk. Hence, at least for collateral purpose the document is required to be marked to prove the severance of status and the possession. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama , [ (2018) 15 SCC 130 ] . Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama , [ (2018) 15 SCC 130 ] . Hence, he seeks to allow the petition. 3. Per contra, Sri.G.Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 supports the impugned order of the trial Court and submits that the document which the petitioner intends to produce clearly indicates that on the said date the partition has been effected between the parties and by virtue of the said document, right has been created. Hence, it is a compulsorily registrable document and non-registration of the said document would attract Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short ' the Act '). In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Singh and Others v. Zile Singh and Others, AIR 1988 SC 881 and contends that the document in question is a partition deed which creates right in favour of the parties on the said date, which has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions advanced on the both sides. 5. The pleading and material on record indicate that respondent No.4 filed OS.No.144/2012 for relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and relief of permanent injunction against respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a counterclaim as they are the absolute owners of the land in Sy.No.93 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas including karab and further relief that the sale deed executed by the husband of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4/plaintiff is not binding and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The case of the petitioner is that there is a partition between the defendants and 1 acre 18 guntas out of the total extent referred supra has fallen to the share of the husband of the petitioner and he sold the same in favour of the respondent No.4. The case of the petitioner is that there is a partition between the defendants and 1 acre 18 guntas out of the total extent referred supra has fallen to the share of the husband of the petitioner and he sold the same in favour of the respondent No.4. During the course of recording evidence, the document at Annexure-'G' was confronted to the DW.1 and he admits the signature of his father on the said document. However, on objection of the other defendants the document was not marked. 6. The document at Annexure-'G' dated 05.03.1981 indicates that the said document is in the nature of partition. The bare perusal of the document clearly demonstrates that on the said day the parties have agreed and accordingly divided the property and signed. Such being the contents of the document, I am of the considered view that the said document is compulsorily required to be registered under the provision of the Act. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sita Ram Bhama referred supra at para 11 held as under: 11. Pertaining to family settlement, a memorandum of family settlement and its necessity of registration, the law has been settled by this Court. It is sufficient to refer to the judgment of this Court in Kale v. Director of Consolidation [Kale v. Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119 ] . The propositions with regard to family settlement, its registration were laid down by this Court in paras 10 and 11: (SCC pp. 126-27) “10. In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions: (1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence; (3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary; (4) It is well settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within the mischief of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registrable; (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same; (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement. 11. The principles indicated above have been clearly enunciated and adroitly adumbrated in a long course of decisions of this Court as also those of the Privy Council and other High Courts, which we shall discuss presently.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on clause 4 of the aforementioned extract of the judgment and contends that the family arrangement which has already taken place between the defendants has been recorded in the Annexure-'A'. Hence, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the document does not fall under Section 17 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has clearly held that the registration would be necessary only if the terms of family arrangements are reduced into writing and if family arrangements are already made and if it is written solely for purpose of record then registration is not required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision has clearly held that the registration would be necessary only if the terms of family arrangements are reduced into writing and if family arrangements are already made and if it is written solely for purpose of record then registration is not required. In the case on hand the document at Annexure-'G' indicates that on the said date i.e. 05.03.1981, the partition has been effected and parties have affixed their signature, hence, registration of the said document is required. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Singh referred supra at para 9 held as under: 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 onwership 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. 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. 10. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the considered view that this is not a case where the partition is already effected and the same is written later. The document date 05.03.1981 unambiguously makes it clear that the parties has divided the property and affixed their signature and by virtue of the said document right has been created. Hence, the contrary contention urged by the petitioner has no merit. The contention that the document is required for collateral purpose is also required to be rejected as the suit is for declaration and permanent injunction filed by respondent No.4 and the counterclaim by respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the similar relief. The trial Court considering the nature of the document sought to be produced has rightly come to conclusion that the document cannot be admitted in the evidence. I do not find any perversity or error in the finding recorded by the Trial Court calling for interference in this petition. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.