A CHANDRASEKHAR Vs. R NARASIMHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in the suit filed a document styled as 'partition list' dt. 18-5-1966 which contains 'A"B' and 'C' schedules. 'A'schedule properties are described as properties which fall to the share of the first defendant and 'B' and 'C' schedule properties are described as properties fallen to the share of the sons of the 1st defendant. It is mentioned in the documents.

(2.) The contention of Sri C. Pattabhirama Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the lower Court has misconstrued the provision of law and the definition of Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by A.P. Act 17/86 and the lower Court also failed to see that the amendment Act is not retrospective in operation.

(3.) The definition of 'instrument of partition' as contained in Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as follows :