- (1.) Affidavit of service filed in Court today is kept on record.
(2.) The present revisional application arises out of an order dated 14th March, 2011 by which a document which according to the petitioners is a memo of partition and not required registration was not admitted to evidence on the ground that the said document is written in Bengali, unregistered and not properly stamped. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 7 to 16 submits that the said deed is in effect a partition deed and requires registration in terms of Section 17(V) of the Registration Act read with Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act.
(3.) Mr. R. N. Dutta appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 adopts the submission of Mr. Basu and relied upon the following decisions in the cases of Hallers Dyamappa vs. Tarihalli Karibasappa,2011 2 ICC 549, Kartick Ch. Mandal vs. Netai Mondal, 2009 2 WbLR 36, Avinash Kumar Chauhan vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 AIR(SC) 1489 and Tarjen Mondal vs. Prithiraj Mondal, 2011 5 CalHN 102 for the proposition that the partition deed has to be stamped and registered and unless it is registered or properly stamped, the same is inadmissible in evidence.;