PALAMAPALLI RAMA SUBBA REDDY Vs. PALAMAPALLI SUBBAREDDYALIASGOLLONIPALLI SUBBANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered notice before admission on 12-4-2005. The respondents were served, but none represents the respondents.

(2.) Sri Naguru Nagaraju, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would submit that inasmuch as the revision petitioner is relying on the documents in question for collateral purpose no stamp duty and penalty need be paid on the said documents. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A. Kishore @ Kantha Rao v. G. Srinivasulu, 2004 (3) ALD 817 (DB).

(3.) The document in question is a partition deed showing the allotment of shares. The revision petitioner intended to place reliance on that document for collateral purpose and this aspect need not be gone into in detail in the present CRP. Even assuming for a moment that the revision petitioner intends to rely upon the document in question for collateral purpose, whether the same is liable for the payment of stamp duty and penalty or not.