IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 191 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/12/2005 IN IA.3003/2001 IN OS.206/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- A.ASHYA UMMAL ABDUL AZEEZ, BEENA HOUSE, F.C.I. ROAD, KATTUKULAM, KADINAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTOM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------- A.ASHYA UMMAL PATHUMMAL, THURUTHIYIL ODUKKATHU VILAKATHU VEEDU, AZHOOR VILLAGE, DO. DESOM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.191 OF 2006 (A) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Revision is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.206 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Attingal. The above suit was one for partition, in which, a final decree has already been passed. Towards engrossing of the final decree in stamp paper the plaintiff presented a memo to receive the stamp value as under the proviso to Article 42 (c) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The court below under the impugned order directed him to pay the stamp duty as per Article 42 (i) of the above Act. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. The order of the court below directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty payable as under Article 42 (i) of the Stamp Act is proper and correct. The case of the petitioner that the CRP.191/06 2 stamp duty payable for engrossing the final decree is under clause 'c' of the proviso to Article 42 (ii) of the Stamp Act is patently erroneous and it was rightly and correctly turned down by the learned Munsiff. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp