showing the details of partition by metes and bounds were wholly inadmissible because it cannot be received in evidence for any purpose under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act and that since these memoranda were also unregistered came under the ban of Section 49(c) of the Registration Act also. The judicial committee said "It is unnecessary to consider the effect of this section (Sec. 49 of the Registration Act) because the documents in question not being stamped, the wider prohibition contained in the Stamp Act applies ...". No regard was therefore paid to the unstamped and unregistered Memoranda of partition. However, their Lordships pointed out an important question as to whether partition had been effected before the institution of the suit. The case in defence was that a complete partition took place during February 1939 and in respect of the said contention evidence was let in by the defendants in the suit. Dealing with this, it was held that "Two witnesses, Das Mal and Sain Das, gave evidence of a partition of the joint property in February, 1939, at which the witnesses were present, and of the parties taking possession of the property allotted to them. This evidence was supported by evidence that soon after February 1939, some land revenue was paid separately by respondent, though previously it had been paid by both parties jointly; by evidence of two witnesses who stated that they had cultivated land belonging jointly to the parties, but that since April, 1939, they had paid separate returns for income tax". It was also held that it was unnecessary to discuss the evidence further in detail since this was done by both the Courts below. In their Lordships' view the evidence establishes a physical division of much of the joint properties in February, 1939, and this is only consistent with a severance in the status of the parties having taken place. The suit for partition was therefore dismissed in the said suit and the relief was granted only in respect of the properties which admittedly remained joint. This decision shows that though allotment of specific shares by metes and bounds being embodied in an unstamped and unregistered document, the other evidences to prove the factum of partition can be adduced. In the instant case as already observed, P.W.2, one of the brothers of the plaintiff had spoken about the earlier partition in the year 1974 and the sale deed Ex.B1 in favour of the defendant also speaks about the said partition. In the circumstances, the plaintiff cannot file a suit for partition as contended by the counsel for the defendants.
