PALANKI NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. MADDUKURI VEERAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the Counsel.

(2.) The short question involved in the present CRP is the admissibility of a document filed partition list dated 10-4-1969. The decree-holder in EP No.327 of 1998 in OS No.156 of 1986 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had filed the aforesaid E.P. seeking delivery of items shown in the list of properties in terms of Order 21, Rule 35 CPC and at that juncture the judgment-debtors 6 to 8 had raised an objection on the ground that they are the owners of the property having got the same in partition with their brothers and they have produced the document a partition list dated 10-4-1969 and the revision petitioner-decree-holder had raised an objection relating to the marking of the said document on the ground that it is not a partition list, but it is an out-and-out deed and the same is compulsorily registrable and liable for stamp duty penalty also. The Court below, after discussing the contentions of the respective parties, had arrived at a conclusion that the objection taken by the revision petitioner-decree-holder is not sustainable and the said document is admissible in evidence and aggrieved by the said order dated 20-7-2000, the present CRP is filed.

(3.) Sri Vijay representing Mr. Krishna Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had contended that the Court below had erred in coming to the conclusion that the document is only a partition list, but in fact it is a partition deed, which is compulsorily registrable and is it also an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act and hence liable for levying Stamp Duty Penalty also.