THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3619 of 2011 ORDER: 1 This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.7 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. 2 Dispute relates to admissibility of a document dated 06.11.2005, which is referred as a family arrangement / agreement marked as Ex.A.18 at the time of examination of plaintiff as P.W.1. On an earlier occasion when the said document was treated as partition deed effecting division of properties and registration of it is compulsory, the petitioner approached this court by way of a revision in CRP No.3740 of 2008. This court while allowing the said revision petition, recorded a finding that such objection can be agitated at the time of trial and final argument and by further observed that the document can be used by the petitioner for collateral purpose to show that properties are joint. 3 In spite of the same, it appears, the impugned order has been passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Janagaon accepting the objection raised by the respondents / defendants stating that the document dated 06.11.2005 is a deed of partition and as such unless it is stamped under Article 40 of Section 40 read with 14 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the same cannot be received in evidence and directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty on the said document. 4 It is the case of the petitioner that there is no mention about division of properties in the above said document and as such it cannot be treated as partition deed at all. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Court below is also contrary to the observations made by this Court in CRP No. 3740 of 2008. 5 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / defendants contended that as the document in question is a partition deed, unless stamp duty is paid, the same is not admissible in evidence. 6 Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the order of this court in CRP No. 3740 of 2008 and also the document dated 06.11.2005, which is drafted in Telugu. 7 A perusal of the recitals of the said document, which is sought to be marked, does not indicate division of properties at all. It is well settled that unless the recitals of the document themselves indicate division of properties, such document cannot be treated as a partition deed either for the purpose of registration or for payment of stamp duty. In that view of the matter, and also in view of the order of this court in CRP No.3740 of 2008, the impugned order upholding the objection raised by the defendants to treat the said document as a partition deed and the consequent direction issued therein to the petitioner for payment of stamp duty is hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to receive the said document into evidence without raising any objection with regard to the registration and stamp duty. 8 Subject to the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 04.11.2011 Kvsn