HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 29-7-2010 C.R.P. No.3599 of 2007 Between: Jami Satyam. …Petitioner. And: Jami Appa Rao. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3599 of 2007 ORDER: Plaintiff in O.S.No.180 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa is aggrieved by the order of the Court below dated 26-6-2007 permitting the defendant to mark the unregistered document dated 9-5-1997 by confronting it to P.W.1. An objection was raised by the plaintiff that the said unregistered document cannot be marked as it requires stamp duty under Article 40 of the Schedule I ‘A’ of the Stamp Act and it also requires registration. The Court below had overruled the said objection in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court titled KAVITHA GOUD v. NOOKALA SUDARSHAN REDDY ([1]). Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the plaintiff. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out and translated Ex.A.1 unregistered document dated 9-5-1997 which is sought to be introduced in evidence by confrontation. The said document recites in the first part that after the death of the father of the parties, there was a partition of properties of the father and it also recites that another Ac.0.80 cents which was not partitioned earlier is being partitioned into equal shares under the aforesaid document. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 2 (15) read with Article 40 Schedule I ‘A’ of the Stamp Act, even a Memorandum of Past Partition attracts stamp duty and is required to be registered as partition deed with effect from 1986 and the Memorandum of Past Partition also is treated as deed of partition. Learned counsel therefore submits that the said un- registered document is objected to on the ground that requisite stamp duty and defect of non-registration makes it inadmissible. Leaned counsel for the respondent on the contrary submits that even as per the pleadings of the parties, the said partition which is referred to in the aforesaid unregistered document is immediately after the death of the father in 1973 and is at least 20 or 25 years old. The defendant’s Written Statement at paragraph 7 specifically says that partition took place 25 years ago by metes and bounds. Even as per the plaint allegations, there was a partition for all the properties except the suit schedule property and each sharer is enjoying his respective shares with absolute rights. Admittedly, the father of the parties died about 20 years back. Learned counsel therefore submits that the recital of past partition in the said document is only a preamble whereas the purpose of the aforesaid document is for partition of Ac.0.80 cents of land between the parties and the reference to the past partition with regard to the other properties is only incidental and in the preamble. Normally, the past partition would be executed between the parties in the immediate proximity of oral partition with a view to have a record of oral partition and serve as an evidence thereof. On the facts of this case, when both the parties accepted that father died 20 years back and there was an oral partition and each sharer is in absolute enjoyment of the respective share. It is evident that the said partition took place at least 20 or 25 years ago. There would therefore be no occasion or necessity to prepare a memorandum of past partition now. Therefore, the primary purpose of the said document being for partition of Ac.0-80 cents of land and as a preamble to that document, reference to the past partition is found in the said document. Admittedly, the said Ac.0.80 cents is not the subject matter of the suit. Keeping in view the principle that document can be severed to the extent it is relevant for the suit, I am of the view that the reference to the past partition in the said document is only incidental to the partition which took place about 20 or 25 years ago much before the amendment to the Stamp Act to the year 1986. The said document therefore prima facie would not fall within the definition of Section 2 (15) Article 40 Schedule I ‘A’ of the Stamp Act as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am therefore not inclined to interfere with the order of the Court below. However, both parties shall be at liberty to raise all contentions available under law in the suit before the Court below. Subject to the observation above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated 29-7-2010 Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. No.3599 of 2007 Dated 29-7-2010 [1] AIR 2004 AP 326