Gattepalli Sadanandam v. Gattepalli Venkatalaxmi

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO C.R.P.No.610 of 2011 ORDER:

Heard Sri H.Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dt.29-10-2010 in O.S.No.17 of 2007 of the II Additional District Judge, Warangal allowing the respondents/defendants to mark in evidence a Takseenama dt.05-02-1976 in a suit for partition filed by the petitioner against them.

3.

After going through the said document, the Court below held that it did not require any registration and it is also not hit by Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity 'the Act, 1899') but directed that the said document be impounded and stamp duty be collected as Bottomry Bond.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the recitals in the document indicate that there is a creation of rights in proesenti by father of the petitioner by name Kanthaiah in favour of the petitioner and two other sons and therefore the said document has to be considered as a partition deed which is compulsorily registerable. He also contended that it is insufficiently stamped as a partition

deed as per the provisions of the Act, 1899.

5.

A copy of the said document has been produced before me. The recitals in the said document suggest that on account of ill-health, the father of the petitioner had divided his properties in the past and had delivered possession to his three sons including the petitioner.

It further states that ever since the said division, the three sons were separately enjoying the extents allotted to them and were also paying taxes.

6. In my considered opinion, the recitals in the document suggest that it is a memorandum of past partition since the emphasis in the document is on property being already given to the three sons. The recitals do not suggest that any right was created in the children by the father of the petitioner for the first time under the said document.

7. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the document in question is not compulsorily registerable (Ghulam Jeelani and others Vs. Mr.Ghulam Sofi[1], Rosham Singh and others Vs. Zile Singh and others[2] a n d Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, Government of Hyderabad Vs. Smt. Tayyaba Begum[3]).

8.

Since the document in question was

executed on 05-02-1976, it does not come within the definition of the term 'instrument of partition' under Section 2 (15) of the Act, 1899 also, because the term 'and a memorandum regarding past partition' was added to the said definition by AP Act 17 of 1986 with effect from 1608-1986. Therefore, it does not require any stamp duty. 9.

In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

10. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 04-02-2016 kvr [1] 1996 (3) ALT 643 [2] AIR 1988 S.C. 881 [3] AIR 1962 A.P. 199 (F.B.)