KOYYA GANGA VENKATA SATYA BHASKARA RAO AND ANOTHER Vs. KOYYA RAMA KRISHNUDU AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-2019-3-130
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 08,2019

Koyya Ganga Venkata Satya Bhaskara Rao And Another Appellant
VERSUS
Koyya Rama Krishnudu And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAM RATTAN VS. BAJRANG LAL [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M. Seetharama Murthi, J. - (1.)In this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiffs, the challenge is to the order, dated 04.01.2019, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, whereby the learned Judge, while upholding the objection of the defendants, held that the document, dated 08.12.1956, is a partition deed and hence, the same is liable to be charged with stamp duty and penalty and that it can be admitted in evidence, even for collateral purposes, unless stamp duty and penalty are paid and collected.
(2.)I have heard the submissions of Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs ['plaintiffs', for brevity]' and, of Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants ['defendants', for brevity]. I have perused the material record.
(3.)The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:-
'The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for a perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land with Mango garden of an extent of Ac. 6.34 cents in Thammayyapeta Bendapudi gram panchayat, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District morefully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants, having filed a written statement, are contesting the suit. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs tendered, for being marked as an exhibit, a document, dated 08-12-1956, styled as 'Sthrirasti Pampakamula Jabitha' (immovable property partition list). When the said document is tendered through P.W.1 for being marked as an exhibit, learned counsel for the defendants objected for making the same on the ground that the said document is not stamped and registered though it is required to be stamped and registered and that it is inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the contents of the said document reflect that the partition had taken place some time back and that the document is only a record of past transaction and that it is only a memorandum of past partition or a partition list evidencing past partition and, therefore, the document does not require to be charged with any stamp duty and is not a compulsorily registerable document. The trial Court, having referred to the contents of the document as well as the precedents cited before it upheld the objection of the defendants and recorded a finding that the document in question is a deed of partition and is liable to be charged with required stamp duty and that unless the stamp duty and penalty are paid, it cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiffs preferred this revision.'

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.