AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nagendra Rai, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The only question for consideration is whether the document is a deed of partition or a memorandum of partition as according to the Petitioner it is a deed of partition whereas according to the opposite party the same is memorandum of partition.
Earlier, the opposite party had come to this Court in C.R. No. 620 of 2000 and this Court observed that it is for the Court to first decide the nature of the document and if the document is a partition deed then definitely impounding might be done and if it is family arrangement, question of impounding does not arise.
By the impugned order, the Court below held that the deed in question is a memorandum of partition (Yaddast) and not deed of partition. The said document has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this revision application. From perusal of the same, It appears that It is a partition deed as by the same deed power has been given to divide the properties between the claimants. It is not a memorandum of partition evidencing that the partition had already taken effect and the document has been executed by way of memorandum. The Court below has committed material illegality in exercise of jurisdiction in holding that the document is a memorandum of partition. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to proceed in the matter by treating the document as deed of partition. It is a suit of 1987. The Court below is directed to expedite its disposal.
In the result, this revision application is allowed.