THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2679 OF 2011 ORDER: 1) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 07.07.2011 in Original Suit No.7 of 2009 on the file of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool at Nandyal, whereunder and whereby the court below directed to pay stamp duty and penalty on the document in question viz. partition deed dated 18.08.2004. 2) The first respondent herein, who is plaintiff, filed the suit against the petitioner and second respondent herein, who are defendants 1 and respectively, for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. When the document in question viz. partition deed dated 18.08.2004, was sought to be marked, counsel for the plaintiff objected therefor on the ground that it requires registration and payment of stamp duty and penalty. After hearing both sides, the court below passed the impugned order holding that the document in question confers right regarding immovable property in favour of the defendants and stamp duty and penalty have to be paid on the said document. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner/D1 contended that the court below ought to have sent the document to the District Collector for ascertaining the stamp duty and penalty, if it is not properly stamped; that though the document requires registration under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and not registered, still it can be used for collateral purpose under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 4) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff contended that as stamp duty and penalty have not been paid on the document in question, it is not admissible in evidence for any purpose, and the trial court rightly held that stamp duty and penalty have to paid on the said document and it requires no interference. 5) It is not in dispute before this court the document in question falls within the meaning of an ‘instrument’ defined in Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person unless such instrument is duly stamped. When once a document comes within the meaning of an ‘instrument’, stamp duty and penalty are required to be paid on the said document, otherwise it cannot be used for any purpose in view of the bar under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Admittedly, stamp duty and penalty have not been paid on the document in question. Even in case of the document which is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908 but is not registered, it can be used for collateral purpose as provided under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 are controlled by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Therefore, the defendants have to pay stamp duty and penalty for receiving the document. Thereafter, its admissibility and relevancy can be decided by duly taking into the objections raised by the other side. 6) The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. The defendants are at liberty to file an application before the court below to send the disputed document to the District Collector for the purpose of ascertaining stamp duty and penalty payable by them. Thereafter, the document can be received as evidence subject to the admissibility and relevancy and also by duly taking into the objections raised by the other side. No order as to costs of the revision. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 16.09.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2679 OF 2011 16.09.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2679 OF 2011 DATED 16.09.2011 Between: S.Rasheed Ahmed …Petitioner And G.Jahanara & another …Respondents