( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 2 ) THE short question involved in the present CRP is the admissibility of a document filed partition list dated 10-4-1969. The decree-holder in EP No. 327 of 1998 in OS No. 156 of 1986 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada is the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner had filed the aforesaid E. P. seeking delivery of items shown in the list of properties in terms of Order 21, Rule 35 CPC and at that juncture the judgment-debtors 6 to 8 had raised an objection on the ground that they are the owners of the property having got the same in partition with their brothers and they have produced the document a partition list dated 10-4-1969 and the revision petitioner-decree-holder had raised an objection relating to the marking of the said document on the ground that it is not a partition list, but it is an out-and-out deed and the same is compulsorily registrable and liable for stamp duty penalty also. The Court below, after discussing the contentions of the respective parties, had arrived at a conclusion that the objection taken by the revision petitioner-decree-holder is not sustainable and the said document is admissible in evidence and aggrieved by the said order dated 20-7-2000, the present CRP is filed.

( 3 ) SRI Vijay representing Mr. Krishna Mohan Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner had contended that the Court below had erred in coming to the conclusion that the document is only a partition list, but in fact it is a partition deed, which is compulsorily registrable and is it also an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act and hence liable for levying Stamp Duty Penalty also.

( 4 ) SRI Rajkumar representing Mr. Dhanamjay, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had contended that the document is only a partition list and even as per the recitals in the document, there was partition among the parties on 1-3-1969 and subsequent thereto a partition list was reduced to writing on 10-4-1969 and hence it is only a partition list and not a partition deed and no registration is required under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The learned Counsel also submitted that since this is a document of the year 1969, the question of paying stamp duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act also would not arise.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing both the Counsel at length, I have gone through the recitals of the document in question. In the document dated 10-4-1969 it is recited that there was partition amongst the parties on 1-3-1969 and on that day itself each sharer had taken their respective shares and had been enjoying the same. On the strength of these recitals, it is contended that it cannot be tenanted as a partition deed but it is only partition list, which does not require registration. No doubt, the nature of the document and the signatures appearing on the document appear to be fresh. But, however, the Court below had observed on this aspect that this is not the stage where the genuineness or otherwise of the document is to be considered, since, at this stage, the Court is concerned with the objection raised by the decree-holder-revision petitioner relating to the marking of the said document. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, in fact, had not seriously canvassed about the aspect of the Stamp Duty and Penalty since the document is of the year 1969. Whether the document is old one or afresh document created for the purpose of defeating the decree, are ail matters which have to be decided at the appropriate stage. In M. Venkatasubbaiah v. M. Subbamma and Ors. , AIR 1956 Andhra 195, the learned single Judge of this Court held that the partition list stating that certain properties were allotted to a member, registration is not necessary under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. In Kanamathareddi Kanna Reddy v. Kanamatha Reddy Venkata Reddy, AIR 1965 AP 274 (FB), t