( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in O. S. No. 282/1995 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, questioning the order of the lower Court dated 25. 10. 2002.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants, and the plaintiffs wanted to rely on a document, which was marked as ex. A. 9. The plaintiffs described the said document as a partition list. During the evidence of P. W. 1 the defendants objected for marking of the same contending that it is a partition deed and as it is not duly stamped and registered, it cannot be admitted in evidence. The lower Court while recording the evidence of p. W. 1 made the following observations:"the recitals in the document show that it is a partition list. Even prior to 29. 12. 1971, they have already partitioned their joint family properties and on 29. 12. 1971 they have executed the above document to show their previous partition and the shares fell to the respective parties. It is mentioned in the document that the parties to the document have to enjoy their respective shares with absolute rights. Admittedly, it is a partition list and it shows the previous partition between the parties to the document and they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective shares. The said document is acknowledging the past and oral partition and reciting that the parties are enjoying their respective shares. Since the document is not creating any right, title or interest in immovable property for the first time, it is not compulsorily registerable and it has to be received in evidence for collateral purpose. The said document was executed in the year 1971. The amendment to stamp Act came into force on 16. 08. 1986, and from that day onwards even a partition list has to be registered and prior to it, there is no necessity for registration of partition list. Hence, the objection raised by the defendants counsel is overruled. "

( 3 ) IN the light of the observations made by the lower Court, it is essential to extract the relevant portion of the document for appreciation by this Court. The title of the document is described as "partition deed" for four shares, which was executed on 29. 12. 1971. It was described as a partition deed executed between Srirama Narasimga Rao, Suryanarayana Murthy, Bhaskara Murthy and jayalakshmamma.

( 4 ) THE relevant portion of the document reads as follows: while partitioning the remaining property, c marked property was allotted to third party, d marked property was allotted to first party, f marked property was allotted to second party, g marked property was allotted to fourth party to the document. It was agreed that b marked property shall be enjoyed as a joint lane by the third party and his wife Nagakrishnavenamma. After leaving e marked property as a joint lane, the respective parties are enjoying their respective shares after taking possession, hence the partition deed.

( 5 ) AFTER describing the details of the properties through schedules, they have mentioned at the end that they executed the partition deed with the consent of all the parties.

( 6 ) THE said document cannot be treated as a partition list, if the contents do not lead to a conclusion that there was earlier partition. The wording used in the said document clearly indicates that they effected partition between the parties through the said deed. Had they mentioned that the partition was effected on a particular earlier date, it would have indicated that they have already partitioned the property prior to the execution of this document. But the contents of the document indicate that the partition was effected through the said document. Simply because there is a mention that the property has been divided, would not in the light of other contents indicate that the partition was effected long prior to the said document. Since the document was executed in the year 1971, it is liab