( 1 ) HEARD both sides.

( 2 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 22-7-2002, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at kurnool, rejecting the request of the petitioners herein to admit the alleged agreement, dated 19-2-1997, in evidence.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.

( 5 ) THE only question that falls for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether a document, which is the very basis of the filing of the suit, is a deed of partition or an agreement to partition and what is the effect of non-registration and insufficient stamp duty of such document?

( 6 ) THE suit is filed for specific performance of alleged agreement of partition deed, dated 19-12-1997, directing the defendants to execute a registered partition deed along with the plaintiffs, conveying the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs, otherwise, to have the same through process of the Court.

( 7 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance (which is detailed as above) on the strength of a deed, which is allegedly an agreement for partition entered into in the year 1997.

( 8 ) DURING the trial, when the said document was sought to be marked, it was objected to by the defendants on two grounds; firstly that the said document was not registered and secondly that the same was insufficiently stamped and hence not admissible in evidence.

( 9 ) THE Court below, after considering the whole issue and also considering the contents of the said document, held that the disputed document was attracted by section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for brevity "the Registration Act"), and also hit by the provisions of the Indian Stamp act, 1899 (for brevity "the Stamp Act"), as the said document was insufficiently stamped. Eventually, the Court below held that the said document was inadmissible in evidence.

( 10 ) CHALLENGING the said judgment and decree of the Court below, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

( 11 ) APPARENTLY, as found by the Court below, the disputed document was objected to for admission in evidence on both the infirmities allegedly suffered by the document under the Registration Act as well as the stamp Act.

( 12 ) INSOFAR as the first aspect is concerned i. e. , whether the disputed document is attracted by Section 17 of the registration Act or not is concerned, the court below has recorded a finding that it was a deed of partition and hence the same is inadmissible.

( 13 ) APROPOS the second objection i. e. , regarding the infirmity suffered by the disputed document under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, it was found by the Court below that as per Section 2 (15) of the stamp Act, the disputed document is an instrument of partition and hence the same was liable to stamp duty under Article 40 of Schedule-I A of the Stamp Act.

( 14 ) INSOFAR as the first objection is concerned, it is to be examined as to whether the disputed document, on construction, is to be held as only a partition deed, in which event would attract the provisions of the registration Act, or only an agreement of partition, which does hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act.

( 15 ) THE Court below, however, had gone into the merits of the case, after going into the contents of the disputed document, and the intention of the parties while reading the import of the language employed in the said document and held that it was in fact a deed of partition but not an agreement of partition. Eventually the Court below held that it was compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the registration Act and accordingly the same is inadmissible.

( 16 ) THE Apex Court in State v. Navjot sandhu, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 109 (SC) = 2003 6 SCC 641, at Paragraph Nos. 13, 14 and 15, observed thus:"paragraph No. 13: It is an archaic practice that during the evide