GOKAL CHAND MITAL,C.J. - (1.) RAMA Kishan was admittedly owner of the shop in dispute. After his death, dispute about the shop arose between his two sons -Ganpat Lal on one side and Gulab Chand on the other. Gulab Chand filed a suit for partition of the shop and separate possession of his share as Gulab Chand was in possession of the entire shop and was not prepared to amicably settle the dispute out of court. The defendant contested the suit and claimed to the exclusive owner of the shop. The trial court decreed the suit and the defendant's appeal remained unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge.
(2.) THIS is special appeal by the defendant. Hardly any argument has been raised before us worth noticing. Before the learned Single Judge, on behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on document marked Ex. A -2, a will executed by the father in favour of the appellant and on this basis he claimed the entire shop. The learned Single Judge noted that no pleadings were made in this behalf in the written statement nor issue was got framed and, therefore, the question of will could not be allowed to be raised. We specifically put to the counsel whether he relies on document marked Ex. A -2 before us or not. His reply is that he is not relying on the document but wants to defeat the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that Exhibit -1, the document relied upon by the plaintiff requires registration because it is a family arrangement, and not a memorandum and in absence of registration of Ex. 1, on the basis of which the suit has been decreed, could not be read in evidence.
(3.) THE Ex. 1 is a document executed by father, by which he says that he has given the property to his two sons in equal share. Both the courts below have relied on this which has been duly proved. By way of family arrangement this could be looked into and we are in agreement with the courts below that it does not require registration.;