POTHLA Vs. POTHULA ALIAS GADDAM SESHIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes up before us at the instance of the office to decide the quantum of non-judicial stamp deposited by the appellant-plaintiff.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the appellant-plaintiff on the demise of her husband in 1965 filed O.S. No. 5 of 1968 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool for partition and separate possession of her 7/36th share in the plaint schedule properties. The contesting defendants set up the plea that there was a partition of the joint family properties in 1962 during the lifetime of the plaintiffs husband and that her husband also adopted defendant No 6 on 22-8-1965 The learned Subordinate Judge, after trial, arrived at the finding that the partition as set up by the contesting joint family members was false and that defendant No. 6 was duly adopted by the plaintiffs husband. In this view, the plaintiff was held entitled to a 7/144th share in the plaint schedule properties and a preliminary decree was accordingly awarded. Aggrieved by the said decree, the plaintiff preferred A.S. No. 129 of 1971 to the court and during the pendency of the Appeal, the parties filed a memo of compromise with a partition to record it and pass a decree in terms thereof. The matter having come up before us on 4/11/1974, we passed the decree in terms of the compromise. The question to be resolved is as to what is the value of the non-judicial stamp that has to be deposited by the appellant-plaintiff to engross the decree passed in her favour.

(3.) Under clause (1) of the compromise memo, the appellant-plaintiff has been allowed to enjoy the properties to the extent of 7/144th share as decreed by the Trial Court as an absolute owner. Under clause (3) of the memo, she has been given a house known as "Ramakrishniah Illu" bearing No. 4/11 of Tartur village as a limited owner; while under clause (2) thereof, she has been provided items 2 and 5 of the plaint schedule, the agricultural lands, absolutely as full owner. Clause (7) of the compromise memo treats the memo of compromise as a final decree. Despite this latest clause, the position that emerges is, that clause (1) of the compromise memo entitles the appellant-plaintiff to a 7/144th share which is in the nature of a mere declaration of her right as to share in the family properties. No specific properties having been allotted to her under this clause, this portion of the compromise could not be treated as final decree. Under clause (3) of the terms of the compromise, only a limited right has been assigned to the appellant-plaintiff in the house property and the value thereof could not be taken into consideration for the purposes of calculating the stamp duty on the partition deed. Items 2 and 5 of the plant schedule properties, according to clause (2) of the compromise, have been absolutely allotted to the appellant-plaintiff and the value of the said item is Rs. 9,000.00.