D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred against the order passed by learned Subordinate Judge -I, Palamau at Daltonganj dated 11th July, 2007 in Partition Suit No. 82 of 2003, whereby, the application preferred by the original Plaintiffs, that the document which is 30 years old document presented by the original Defendants should not be given exhibit number, has been rejected.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners (original Plaintiffs) has raised three main arguments: (a) Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the deed of relinquishment, which is the unregistered document, presented by the original Defendant cannot be given exhibit number. (b) By unregistered deed of relinquishment, which is of the year 1952, no property can be transferred and, therefore also, the said document cannot be given exhibit number. (c) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in, 1995 (1) PLJR 564 especially in paragraphs 8 and 12 thereof. Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The present Petitioners are original Plaintiffs, who have instituted Partition Suit No. 82 of 2003 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge -I, Palamau at Daltonganj. (ii) It appears that the Respondents have presented unregistered deed of relinquishment dated 1st June, 1952 before the trial Court. This is a document upon which the original Defendants are relying. (iii) Thereafter, it appears that the Petitioners (original Plaintiffs) have given an application dated 22nd June, 2007 that the unregistered deed of relinquishment presented by the original Defendants cannot be given exhibit number. (iv) It appears that there is misconception in the mind of the original Plaintiffs about the exhibit number. None of the aforesaid three arguments are helpful to the original Plaintiffs mainly for the reason that merely because exhibit number is given, that is not a final thing in the whole suit. The evidentiary value of the document will depend upon the totality of the evidences on record and not merely of exhibit number only. Moreover, merely because the exhibit number is given that does not mean that the said document is conclusive evidence of the allegation levelled by the concerned party, who is relying upon the said document. It may happen that even the document is given exhibit number, its evidentiary value may be nil. It will depend upon the totality of the circumstances and the totality of the evidences on record and, therefore, apprehension in the mind of the original Plaintiffs is unwarranted and uncalled for.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the trial Court by giving exhibit number of the aforesaid document, which is 30 years old document as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.;