HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.478 OF 2008 DATE:21-01-2011 BETWEEN Gajula Sri Krishna Ranga Nayaka Venkata Subba Rao …Petitioner AND Vemuri BasavaPoornaiah & others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.478 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to revise the orders of the Senior Civil Judge at Avanigadda, dated 21.11.2007 made in I.A.No.200 of 2007 in I.P.No.15 of 2005. Petitioner, who filed the above Insolvency Petition under Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, filed the impugned I.A. to grant permission to amend the I.P. in para III(B) to the effect that there was an oral partition in between the petitioner and his father late Veeraiah on 1.6.2000 in the presence of elders with regard to their ancestral properties and later on 25.9.2000, a memo of partition list was executed acknowledging the earlier oral partition. In the said partition, an extent of Ac.8.49 cents of land fell to the share of the petitioner. Again there was an oral partition among the petitioner and his children in the presence of elders on 3.10.2000 and a memo of partition list was executed on 25.12.2000 acknowledging the earlier oral partition. In the said partition, an extent of Ac.2.50 cents of land fell to the share of the petitioner, which is shown in B.1 schedule annexed to the I.P. Thus the petitioner is having 1/4th share in his joint family properties and even assuming for the sake of the petition without prejudice to his rights to contest the I.P., the above said partition was not effected and his 1/4th share in the above said properties is less than Ac.2.50 cents out of Ac.8.49 cents. The petitioner further sought to amend para-III (B) to the effect that the petitioner is declared his willingness to place at the disposal of the Court all such property that is mentioned in B.1 schedule and B.5 schedule items which are not exempted by the Code of Civil Procedure or by any other enactment for the time being in force from liability to attachment and sale in execution of decree. The lower Court dismissed the impugned I.A. holding that Section 13 (1) (e) (iii) of Provincial Insolvency Act is not mandatory and therefore, the debtor has to follow Section 13 (1) (e) (iii) of Insolvency Act, that the debtor has come forward by saying that his liabilities have exceeded about his assets, and now come forward with the petition pleading partition among his family members, and therefore, the amendment petition is not maintainable. Admittedly, as per the amendment carried out either to the Stamp Act or to the Registration Act, any oral partition must be registered after 1.4.1999. In view of the same, the oral partition pleaded by the petitioner cannot be admitted in evidence, which requires necessary stamp duty and registration. Hence, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the impugned I.A. does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 21, 2011 Tsr.