IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5635 OF 2010 Between: Jilla Vijayalaxmi …Petitioner A n d Ryagalla Bhoodevi and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5635 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.11.2010 in O.S.No.89 of 2005, on the ﬁle of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, wherein the said objection raised by the petitioner herein, plaintiﬀ No.3, over admissibility of document dated 02.01.2000 produced by the defendants was overruled, observing that the document was in the nature of only an award by the mediators but not a partition deed and is liable to be charged only under Article 12(c) of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act, but not under Article 40. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein and two others ﬁled the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for separate possession of one-sixth share therein. The defendants ﬁled written statement contesting the suit. At the time of evidence, the defendants produced a document dated 02.01.2000 styled as ‘faisalanama’ which was executed on stamp paper worth Rs.80/-. The plaintiﬀs objected for admission of the said document on the ground that it is partition deed as deﬁned under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act and, therefore, liable for payment of stamp duty under Article 40 of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the said document is only an award passed by mediators suggesting the mode of partition, but not a partition deed creating any rights thereunder. 4. A perusal of the said document dated 02.01.2000 would show that the dispute was referred to four mediators named therein and they have suggested the ways and means of eﬀecting an amicable division of the properties. The said document does not aﬀect any partition as such among the parties but only advises as to how best the division of properties can be eﬀected for mutual beneﬁt. The said document does not, therefore, create or declare any rights in the property as such and does not answer the description of an instrument of partition under Section 2(15) of the Act. Though the said definition includes an award by an Arbitrator, directing partition, the document does not also constitute an award passed by the arbitrators, but is only in the nature of an amicable settlement of the dispute by the mediators reduced into writing the suggested method of division. 5. In the circumstances, it is held that the document, not being an instrument of partition as such, is not liable to be charged with stamp duty under Article 40 of Schedule IA of the Stamp Act, as contended by the defendants. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 11th November, 2011 Lrkm.