- (1.) This case has a chequered history. The suit was filed by plaintiff-petitioner Shriniwas somewhere in the year 1963 and is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaur. The proceedings of the suit are suck up till today concerning the admissibility of a document which the defendants went to produce and rely in support of their defence. The document, about which now there is no dispute, that it is a partition deed which is neither registered nor stamped which was executed on 10.11.1951.
(2.) In the first instance learned Civil Judge held on 11.5.64 that document was an instrument of partition within the meaning of Sec. 2(15) of Stamp Act. As it was unregistered and unstamped, it could not be used for any purpose. On a revision before this Court by its judgment dt. 8.10.66 in S.B. Civil Revision No. 386/64, after observing that there is no dispute about nature of document being a partition deed, the court decided revision petition with the following direction : "the unregistered document can however be used to prove the factum of partition as mere severance of joint status does not affect the immovable property as was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Nani Bai Vs. Gita Bai (5). The deed cannot be looked into, to find out what properties were partitioned. The deed is however unstamped and it can be used for the collateral purpose to prove the factum of partition only after the requisite duty and penalty as determined by the trial court have been paid."
(3.) Thereafter by order dated Dec. 4,1971, Civil Judge, Nagaur fixed the valure of property, subject matter of the said partition deed for the purposes of levying duty and imposing penalty. That order was again challenged by the defendants. The court held, relying on Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Another, 1972 AIR(SC) 899 in its order dt. 18.7.74 in Revision no. 86/72 as under :- "Learned counsel are in agreement that such a valuation has not been disclosed in that document, and that the case fails to be governed by section 27 of the Stamp Act. There is no provision in the Stamp Act empowering the Revenue to make an independent inquiry of the value of the property conveyed for determining the duty chargeable.;