Acknowledgment of prior partition need not be registered, and partition must still be tested on the full record.

A document that merely records and acknowledges a prior partition does not itself effect a fresh division of immovable property or create new rights, so it is not compulsorily registrable. Where such a document is admissible, the fact-finding body must consider the entire record and decide whether partition has actually been proved, rather than rest its conclusion only on exclusion of that document. In a Hindu Mitakshara family, jointness is presumed and the burden to prove partition remains on the party asserting it. The matter was therefore to be reconsidered on the existing evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a document recording acknowledgment of a previous partition required registration; (ii) whether, on answering the first question in the negative, the Tribunal had to re-examine the materials on record and decide the issue of partition afresh.

Issue (i): Whether a document recording acknowledgment of a previous partition required registration.

Analysis: The document was found to recite an earlier partition and merely acknowledged the partition already made. A document of that nature does not itself effect a fresh partition or create rights in immovable property, and therefore it is not compulsorily registrable. The fact that a list of properties was appended only supported the recital of prior partition.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative and the document did not require registration.

Issue (ii): Whether, on answering the first question in the negative, the Tribunal had to re-examine the materials on record and decide the issue of partition afresh.

Analysis: Once the document was held admissible, the Tribunal could not rest its conclusion only on exclusion of that document. In a Hindu Mitakshara family, jointness is presumed and the burden lies on the assessee to establish partition by evidence. The Tribunal was therefore required to consider all the materials already on record and then determine whether partition had in fact been proved. The power to reframe the question was confined to clarifying and directing reconsideration on the existing record.

Conclusion: The reframed question was answered in the affirmative, and the Tribunal was required to re-examine the existing materials on the issue of partition.

Final Conclusion: The reference succeeded to the extent that the document was held to be admissible without registration and the Tribunal was directed to reconsider the partition question on the existing evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A document that merely acknowledges a prior partition is not compulsorily registrable, and where such admissible material affects the finding on partition, the Tribunal must consider the entire record and cannot decide the issue by excluding that document from evidence.

---