( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 17-4-2003, passed by the II Additional District Judge, ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar, hyderabad, in O. S. No. 26 of 2002, holding that the document dated 3-6-1977, which is sought to be introduced in evidence, as not admissible and consequently refusing to receive and mark the same, the petitioners who are the plaintiffs filed this C. R. P.

( 2 ) A perusal of the order and other material on record, would disclose that the plaintiffs filed suit O. S. No. 26 of 2002 against the defendants for partition of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs are sons of one late Sattaiah. Defendant no. 2 is the wife of defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiffs, their father is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and when he failed to pay arrears of rentals in excise business, the government auctioned the suit properties. Initially, the said property was purchased by one Tirumalachari. Later, father of defendant no. 1 (sic. 2), namely Subodh Kishan purchased the property in 1968 from the auction purchaser. Later when the father of the plaintiffs intended to purchase the same, father of defendant No. 2 agreed to sell the same to the family on condition that the suit schedule property be purchased in the name of defendant No. 2. According to the plaintiffs, though the suit schedule property was purchased in the name of defendant no 2, the same was purchased for the benefit of the entire joint family. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that the document under which the property was purchased in the name of defendant No. 2 is an unregistered sale deed dated 1-3-1968. According to them, the property was treated as joint family property after the death of their father till oral partition was effected in 1976. It is further averred that the suit schedule properties were not partitioned in 1976 by metes and bounds. In order to avoid future complications, family arrangement document was executed on 3-6-1977 between the plaintiffs and defendants in the presence of elders. When the plaintiffs sought to produce the said document to be marked in evidence, defendants took an objection that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of their father, and that document dated 3-6-1977 is inadmissible in evidence. It is further contended that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 cannot be challenged in view of the prohibition contained in the benami Transactions Prohibition Act, 1988. The Court below upon considering the rival contentions, refused to receive the document in evidence. Aggrieved thereby, the present C. R. P. is filed.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the petitioners-plaintiffs that the document dated 3-6-1977, which they sought to introduce in evidence, does not require registration as the same is only a family arrangement evidencing earlier partition. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that the recitals in the document which the petitioners seek to introduce in evidence, evidence conveyance of rights of the respective parties, and inasmuch as the said document evidences partition of the suit schedule property between the parties, the same is liable for stamp duty and requires registration.

( 5 ) IN the light of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the document sought to be marked in evidence is inadmissible on the ground that it requires registration?

( 6 ) TO consider this question, a reference be made to some of the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the stamp Act ).

( 7 ) SECTION 2 (6) of the Stamp Act, defines chargeable to mean as applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of the Act and as applied to any other instrument, chargeable under the law in force in India when such