( 1 ) THE revision petitioner assails the order dated 29. 7. 2004 passed by the learned 1 additional district judge, cuddapah, in s. r. No. 4609/2004 in la. No. 717/2004 and ia No. 718/2004 in o. s. No. 12/2004. Under the impugned order, the learned judge held that the document in question dated 6. 9. 1997 was a family arrangement.

( 2 ) THE facts germane in the context, which elucidate the baffling question about the nature of the document, need be set forth at the outset.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner filed the suit o. s. No. 12/2004 on the file of the senior civil judge, cuddapah, against the respondents herein for recovery of an amount of rs. 7,74,767/ -. According to him, he purchased the cinema hall of the fourth respondent in two moieties under two different sale deeds. The fact that the existence of tax arrears and the bank loan on the projector floated by the fourth respondent were concealed and not divulged to him at the time of the sale transaction; and that later the fourth respondent agreed to clear the arrears but failed to do so. He, therefore, was constrained to clear off the bank loan and pay the tax arrears to some extent to the department and for recovery of those amounts, he laid the suit. However, no relief was sought as against the respondents 1 to 3 herein who are defendants 2 to 4 and the brothers of the fourth respondent. Accompanying the suit, he filed a petition under order 38 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the c. p. c. ) seeking attachment before judgment of the house property bearing No. 16/531, chinna chowk polam, cuddapah. When conditional attachment was ordered and effected, the respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition under order 38 Rule 8 of the cpc for raising the attachment on the premise that the house property in dispute which was allotted to the father of the respondents in the partition was later given to the respondents 1 to 3 in a family arrangement and evidencing the said arrangement the document dated 6. 9. 1997 came to be executed by the members of the family and, therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 had exclusive rights over the said house property.

( 4 ) INITIALLY the claim petition was filed, as aforesaid, on the file of the senior civil judge, cuddapah. The learned judge directed the claim petitioners to pay the stamp duty and penalty as per Article 40 of the Indian stamp act (for brevity the act ) assessing the stamp duty at rs. 8,434/- having been of the view that the document in question was a partition deed, with penalty at 10 times thereon. The claim petitioners objected to for the said course. Subsequently, the claim petition was transferred to the court of the i additional district judge, cuddapah. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition when the document in question had been sought to be introduced, an objection as regards its admissibility for want of stamp duty and registration was raised. That objection was not sustained under the impugned order.

( 5 ) SRI o. manohar reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, represents that the document in question is nothing but an instrument of partition since shares have been allotted to the members of the family.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Sri p. Gangaiah naidu, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, represents that the document in question is squarely a family arrangement under which the father wanted to give the property to two of his sons.

( 7 ) IN view of the above contentions, the question that falls for my determination is as to the nature of the transaction under the questioned document.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, there had been a partition of the joint family properties in between the respondents and their father late k. Rama subbaiah in june, 1991. As per the advice of the elders in the oral partition, properties were divided and the suit house in question fell to the share of the late rama subbaiah and other properties were given to each one o