ORDER
D.D. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Killor, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner, his brother and father were jointly owning the property. The father of the petitioner, who was Karta of the joint Hindu family, partitioned the property on 1-4-1995. The partition was oral, which was reduced to writing on 12-6-1996. The petitioner got property of Mouza Anjankhed. The petitioner moved an application to the Talathi to take mutation entry of Gat No. 2 in his name as per oral partition. However, Talathi has not passed any order on the said application. The learned Counsel further states that Talathi is raising an objection that the document, i.e. deed dated 12-6-1996, which demonstrates oral partition is not a registered document and, therefore, is not allowing the application of petitioner for mutation.
3. Learned Counsel Shri Deshpande further states that the joint family property received by the coparcener in the partition is not a transfer and for this purpose, the learned Counsel is relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat v. Keshavlal Lallubhai Patel, . Similarly, it is further contended that since it is not the transfer, it is not necessary to register the deed of transfer. In support of this contention, reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the judgment of the Apex Court in Digambar Adhar Patil v. Devram Girdhar Patil (died) and Anr., .
4. In view of above referred decisions of the Apex Court, it is clear that the property received by the coparcener in the partition of joint Hindu family property is not a transfer and, therefore, registration of transfer deed is not necessary. We direct the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner for mutation according to law, without insisting oh registration of the document. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
