THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.304 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 10.12.2008, in O.S.No.49 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, whereunder and whereby, the document viz., partition list, dated 05.03.1998, was ordered to be marked. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that the document now sought to be received as evidence is a relinquishment deed and so, stamp duty and penalty has to be paid. 3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the document is a partition list and therefore, it does not require any stamp duty and penalty. 4. When an instrument falls under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (for short, “the Act”) no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. ‘Instrument’ is defined under Section 2 (14) of the Act, which includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished or recorded. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the document sought to be received is a partition list and it is admissible in evidence without any stamp duty and penalty. A memorandum regarding past partition is an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Act. If the document sought to be received falls under Section 2 (14) or 2 (15), then it is an instrument. Therefore, the document filed by the respondent herein in the trial Court is an instrument and consequently, it is liable for stamp duty and penalty under Section 35 of the Act. Section 35 of the Act makes it very clear that unless the instrument is duly stamped, it cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person. Since, the document sought to be marked purports to create a transfer of right or interest in the immovable property, it requires stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the document now sought to be received shall be received only after payment of stamp duty and penalty. With regard to the relevancy, admissibility and proof of the document is concerned, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are left open to be raised at appropriate time in the trial Court. It is needless to observe that whether the document is a partition deed or a relinquishment deed, is to be decided by the trial Court after adducing the evidence by both the parties. 5. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. Since, the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the suit, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and both the parties shall co- operate with the trial Court for disposal of the suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J December 09, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.304 OF 2009 Between: Sadineni Laasya Sree @ Laasya Ratna .....PETITIONER AND Sadineni Bosubabu and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.304 OF 2009 December 09, 2010