C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision arises out of order dated 12-2-1996 in LA. No. 44 of 1996 in O. S. No. 130 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the i Additional District Munsif, Kakinada, directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty of Rs. 1,035/- and penalty of Rs. 10,350/- on an entry in the Account Book sought to be marked as an exhibit by the Revision petitioner.

( 2 ) THE Revision Petitioner and respondent are related to each other and were members of a joint family. Revision petitioner filed a suit for injunction against the respondent. During the course of evidence when he wanted to mark an entry in the account book as an exhibit, it was objected to by the respondent on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty. When the entry was referred to the office to assess the stamp duty payable thereon, the office prepared a note that the said entry, in the account book, is a deed of partition, and hence stamp duty and penalty payable thereon would come to rs. 11,385/ -. The learned I Additional district Munsif accepted the Office Note and directed the revision petitioner to pay the said amount of Rs. 11,385/- as stamp duty and penalty for getting that entry marked during evidence (for the sake of convenience the entry in the account book would hereinafter be referred to as the document ). Aggrieved thereby, this revision is preferred.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that the trial Court, without independently considering the recitals in the document, and coming to a conclusion whether it is a document requiring stamp duty or not, simply accepted the note prepared by the office and gave a direction to pay the stamp duty and penalty as assessed by the office, and contended that since the document is not and cannot be said to be a deed of partition the order under revision is not sustainable. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the revision petitioner, on an earlier occasion, took return of the document for being produced before the collector to determine the nature of the document and the stamp duty and penalty payable thereon, but does not seem to have taken steps to get the stamp duty and penalty by the Collector, but again produced the document before the Court and contended that the Court below rightly held the document to be a deed of partition and so there are no grounds to interfere with the order under revision. In reply the contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that when the document was produced before the collector, he referred the same to the Sub- registrar, and the Sub-Registrar did not assess the stamp duty as no immovable property is involved, and since neither the collector nor the Sub-Registrar assessed the stamp duty payable on the document, revision petitioner again produced it before the Court.

( 4 ) THOUGH the revision petitioner took return of the document to get the stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable thereon assessed by the Collector, the Collector does not seem to have determined the nature of the document. On the earlier occasion, the court also does not seem to have determined the nature of the document. Thus the nature of the document came to be determined for the first time, only by the order under revision.

( 5 ) THE document, which is in Telugu when translated into English reads:"till 23-7-1970 all of us namely pulavarthi Seetharama Murthy, s/o Pulavarthi Somaraju, Sri somaraju, Sri Satyanandam, and Sri laxmi Surya Subrahmaniyam, all sons of Sri Pulavarthi Seetharama Murthy, were members of a joint family, which has gold and silver business in the name and style of "pulavarthi somaraju and Sons", paint manufacturing and sale business under the name and style of union paints at Kakinada. Apart from those businesses Somaraju and satyanandam in partnership have been running a paint and iron shop in the name and style of pulavarthi hardware Stores at Kakinada, as a registered firm and is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document