THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners/defendants 1 and 2 filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revive the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in O.S.No.2297 of 2005. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and that the gift deed dated 27.04.2005 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and another gift deed dated 25.02.2004 are not binding on him. After his cross-examination, the plaintiff filed certain documents including the partition list dated 30.04.1989 to mark the same on his behalf. The learned counsel for the defendants took objection regarding marking of partition list dated 30.04.1989 on the ground that it was neither stamped nor registered, and as such, it was hit by the provisions of the Stamp Act as well as the Registration Act. The learned Judge by the impugned order, overruled the objections raised by the defendants and permitted the plaintiff to mark the partition list dated 30.04.1989 through P.W.1. Hence, this revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent and perused the entire material available on record. The recitals of the partition list dated 30.04.1989 clearly disclose that from the date of the said document the property, which fell to the share of the parties, can be developed by the parties to whom it is allotted and the parties to the said document and their sons will have the right to sell and enjoy the property permanently. Merely because the parties agreed to execute the documents in future, will not change the nomenclature of the partition deed. Therefore, the lower Court fell in error in applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Maturi Pullaiah @ Naga Pullaiah Rao v. Maturi Narasimham (1967 Andhra Weekly Reporter (SC) 14), wherein it was held that the document did not bring about a division by metes and bounds between the parties. But, in the instant case, the recitals as referred to above have the effect of division of the properties, which fell to the share of the parties and extinguishing the rights of others in the property. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. However, whether the document in question can be admissible in evidence or not can be decided along with the main suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2011 va