K M KRISHNAN Vs. K CHOCKALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O. S. No. 5/2001 on the file of the additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court at Pudukottai, aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, admitting a document (Ex. A1) in evidence, have questioned the same in this revision.

(2.) THE respondent in this revision petition as plaintiff approached the trial Court, for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties, impleading the revision petitioners as defendants. According to respondent/plaintiff, the properties described in the plaint originally belonged to them as ancestral properties. THE parties being the close relatives, claimed inheritance over the properties. According to the plaintiff/respondent, he is entitled to 1/3 share and therefore, he prayed for a preliminary decree for partition. In the plaint, the plaintiff has relied upon a document dated 21. 9. 1996, to prove his interest in the suit properties, labeling the same as partition agreement.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits, that the document exhibited as Ex. A1 by the trial Court, is an agreement, under which the parties have agreed to divide the properties in severalty, attracting the nomenclature - "instrument of partition" as defined under Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter called 'the Act') and that the same is to be stamped as bottomary bond, as per the entry 45 of Schedule-I. It is the further submission of the learned counsel, that since the document is not stamped so and the plaintiff has not paid the stamp duty and penalty also, this document is inadmissible in evidence, in addition for want of registration also.