MANIMATHA REDDY Vs. LTKIHMIKANTHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff. In the course of trial the plaintiff sought to file and mark the partition lists in support of the plea of allotment of properties to the members of the family. The defendant objected to the filing of the said lists on the ground that they conititute a partition deed and liable to be impounded and duty and penalty has to be collected and till then the documents cannot be marked. The documents are lists of properties comprising dry and wet lands which fell to the share of each of the members of the family who are father and sons in accordance with the decision dated 15-4-1963. All the parties appear to have signed on each listen 15-4-1963 and the said date is corrected as 16-4-1963. The court below on a consideration of the facts and circumstances and survey of the decisions touching the issue held that the partition lists arc tantamount to instrument of partition as defined under clause 15 of Art. 2 of the Indian STAMP ACT, 1899 and they are liable to be impounded and they cannot be admitted in evidence till the duty and penalty are levied. Aggrieved by the said order this revision-petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lists sought to be adduced contain the properties allotted to each member of the family pursuant to the partition affected previously and as such not liable to stamp duty at all. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the partition lists constitute a memorandum of partition liable to duty.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in I.L.R. 7 Madras 385. The facts in this decision may be recalled. In 1877 all the parties to the suit executed an agreement to abide by the arbitration of 5 individuals regarding the division of family properties and the arbitrators accordingly divided the properties and each coparcener has been living separately and enjoying the properties allotted to him in the arbitration. The issue is whether Exhibits 2 and 3 constituting a note recording the allotment of the propertics in the partition are liable to stamp duty. It was held that the exhibits cannot be considered as an award of partition and does not by itself operate to release the joint interest in the properties. In M.R.Thekura vs. Sukhraj Singhi it is held that a partition chitti which merely recorded that certain persons named therein have been allotted the properties described therein that a partition need not be registered under Sec. 17 (1) (b) and it also does not require to be stamped as it is not an instrument of partition.