proceeded to partition the properties belonging to them and in such view of the matter, while the Koorchit projected in the matter intended to operate as a declared volition constituting or severing ownership and causes a change of legal relation to the properties divided thereunder amongst the parties thereto, the said document requires compulsory registration as per Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act and when it is found that the koorchit projected by the parties is not a registered document and further only by way of the said document, the parties thereto had intended to effect partition of their properties as recited therein and thereby, have separate possession and enjoyment of the allotted shares as divided, accordingly, sans registration of the said document as per law, it is found that based upon the said document, no title could be conferred on the plaintiff as well as the defendants in respect of the suit Well as put forth by them. It is thus found that the basic title deed, upon which, both the parties claim title to the said Well, being an unregistered document, which requires compulsorily registration as per law as above stated, on that score alone, it is found that the plaintiff being the suitor and accordingly, it is found that the suit laid by the plaintiff should fail. When it is found that the main document, upon which, the parties claim title to the said Well is not admissible in evidence for want of registration as per law, the subsequent sale transactions effected in respect of the others shares in the said Well by itself would not confer a valid title to the said Well to the plaintiff as http://www.judis.nic.in
