Milap Chandra, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jalore dated September 8,1989 by which he has held that the document executed by Jetha Ram, father of the defendant-non-petitioners, is not admissible in evidence. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.
(2.) The plaintiff-petitioners have f led a suit for declaration, possession and partition) of a suit Nohara. They filed a document titled as 'FAR-G ATI' executed by Jetha Ram, father of the defendant-non petitioners. An issue was framed on its admissibility. After hearing the parties, it has been decided against the plaintiffs by the learned District Judge by its order under revision.
(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has seriously erred in holding that the partition of the suit Nohra has been effected by this document and it is not a memorandum of partition which had earlier been effected. He relied upon Addanki Narayanappa and another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, AIR 1966 SC 1300 and Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimhan and others, AIR 1966 SC 1836.;