RAJARAM PARASHRAM Vs. MADHAV MURAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of a partition suit which was filed by Madhava opponent No. 1 against his brother Parasram and his sons. Parasram is dead and his four sons are opponents Nos. 2 to 5. His fifth son Rajaram is the Petitioner. Rajaram was a minor at the time of institution of the suit. A preliminary decree was passed by the Civil Judge 2nd Class Kasrawad. A Commissioner was appointed for the actual division of the property, but subsequently a compromise was arrived at between the parties and on the basis of this compromise a final decree was drawn up by the Court on plain capers and signed on 31 -1 -1952. In the executing Court certain objections were taken to this decree as it was not on stamp and the decree -holder took the decree back and made an application to the trial Court for drawing up of the decree on the stamp papers which were furnished.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on - 'Jotindra Mohan v. Bejoy Chand', 32 Cal 483, where the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court at page 491 observed:

(3.) IN - 'Satyanandam v. Paramkusum Nammayya' : AIR 1938 Mad 307, the principle was further elaborated by laying down that a final decree for partition has no existence as a decree until it is engrossed on proper nonjudicial stamp paper. It was added that the decree and the proceedings taken thereunder cannot become validated with retrospective effect on the production of the proper nonjudicial stamp. In - 'Muzaffar Husain v. Sharafat Husain' : AIR 1933 Oudh 562 (S.B.), a Special Bench of the Otidh Chief Court following - 'Thiruvengadathan Aiya v. Mangayya', 35 Mad 26 held that a decree passed on the basis of the compromise filed by the parties in a partition suit which has the effect of allotting specific portions of property to the parties is an "instrument of partition" within the meaning of Section 2(15) and must be stamped as required under Schedule 1, Article 45 of the Indian Stamp Act.