G MOULANA SAHEB Vs. SUB REGISTRAR THIRUPATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is against the Checkslip issued by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupathur, North Arcot Ambedkar District for payment of the stamp duty for the award presented by the revision petitioner. The arbitrators were appointed at the request of the petitioners relating to their property dispute, and the arbitrators passed the award on 26. 9. 1988 alloting properties to the parties to the award. THIS award was presented to the Sub-Registrar, Tirupathur for registration and the Sub-Registrar treating this document as a partition deed under Sec.2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directed for payment of the necessary stamp duty on this document. Challenging this order of the Sub-Registrar, the Revision Petitioner herein filed the suit before the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur, North Arcot Ambedkar District to set aside this order and the Subordinate Judge issued check slip for payment of the stamp duty on the document viz., the award. As against this check slip, the plaintiffs had come forward with this revision. 2.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the award is only a direction as to the mode of revision and therefore, this document cannot be treated as a partition deed bringing it under Sec.2(15) of the Act and the lower court is not correct in issuing the check slip for the payment of stamp duty. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.Swaminathan argued that in this award, the house properties have been allotted to the parties to the arbitration proceedings and when specific properties have been allotted to the sharers, it is partition deed and therefore, the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupathur for payment of the stamp duty is perfectly correct. Sec.2(15) of the Act reads "Instrument of Partition" means any instrument whereby coowners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue authority or any civil court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition. But, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner referring to a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue v. M. Swaminathan, A.I.R. 1980 Mad. 97 would contend that when the award requires another document to be executed for the purpose of allotment of shares, the award cannot be an instrument of partition as defined under Sec.2(15) of the Act. In the award filed in this case clause (1) reads that D.No. 7 has to be sold by the parties Nos.2 and 3 and their sister Mohan Jabir and out of the sale consideration, Rs.One lakh has to be given to party No.3 and the balance to the father of the first party Haji Mohammed Qyasuddin Saheb and as this is only a direction, there is no allotment of D.No.7 to any if the parties to bring it as an instrument of partition, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further argue that in clause (3), D.No.29 has been given to Mohan Jabir for which party No. 1 has to execute a document in her favour with restriction of alienation of the property and similarly in clause (5), there is a direction to execute a release deed in respect of D.No.5 by party No.2 in favour of party No.3 and as further documents have to be executed as directed in the award, the award cannot be treated as an instrument of partition.

(3.) FROM the reading of the above clauses which I mentioned above, specific items have been allotted to each of the sharers and therefore, it cannot be stated that this is only a mode of division suggested to the sharers. On the other hand, specific shares have been allotted to each party including the owelty to party No.3 to compensate the share viz., D.No.30 allotted to him, as it is an old building. FROM the recitals, I am satisfied that this document which specifies the shares of the parties, falls within the definition of Sec.2(15) making it an instrument of partition and therefore, the lower court is perfectly right in issuing check-slip directing the revision petitioners to pay the stamp duty on the award. As I find no error in the order of the court below, the revision deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently C.M.P. No.16247 of 1993 is dismissed.