BANDIKATLA PADMAVATHI Vs. BANDIKATLA VEERA BRAHMA CHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 14-9-2009 in O. S. No. 193/2002 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) During the course of evidence, defendant No. 1 sought to present two documents in evidence. They are, document dated 29-4-1989, styled as family settlement arrangement and document dated 29-9-1989, styled as an arrangement. The plaintiff objected to the marking of these documents on the ground that they are in the nature of settlement deeds which create rights in the parties and therefore, they require stamp duty and registration. The lower Court has sustained the objection with reference to document dated 29-4-1989 and rejected the objection relating to document dated 29-9-1989. Feeling aggrieved by the said order to the extent of refusing to receive the document dated 29-9-1989, defendant No. 1 filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

(3.) At the hearing, Sri G. L. V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for defendant No. 1, submitted that the document in question is a mere family arrangement which was reduced into writing what family members of defendant No. 1 have earlier agreed to. According to the learned counsel, such an arrangement, though reduced into writing, is not liable for payment of stamp duty and registration. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on Krishna Beharilal (dead) by his legal representatives Vs. Gulab chand and others, 1971 AIR(SC) 1041, Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. and others Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd., 2007 AIR(SC) 18, Govt. of A. P. and others Vs. M. Krishnaveni and others, 2006 7 SCC 365and The Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. M. Swaminatha Chettiar, 1980 AIR(Mad) 97