( 1 ) ). THIS is a revision petition filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the constitution of India questioning the order in LA. No. 1351 of 1995 in LA. No. 854 of 1984 in O. S. No. 42 of 1962 dated 10-7-1996 passed by the First additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

( 2 ) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy submits that the petition has been filed to pass final decree in respect of agricultural lands situated at Hakimpet village admeasuring Ac. 45-00 of land out of Ac. 66-00 of agricultural dry land allotted to the share of the plaintiff and defendants 3/4,6,14 to 17and legal representatives of the deceased second defendant (respondent No. 30 ). It is stated that the respondent No. 29 opposed the application and the First Additional Judge by his order dated 29-3-1996 in LA. No. 1851 of 1995 in LA. No. 854/84 in O. S. No. 42 of 1962 overruled the objection of the respondent No. 29 allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to file Non-Judicial stamps for engrossing final decree. The petitioner deposited non-judicial stamps worth Rs. 30/- and the said stamps were returned with a direction to file non-judicial stamps as per the present market value along with certificate showing the present market value. The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the direction of the Court to file non-judicial stamps as per the present market value would amount to revaluation of the property and the Court cannot go behind the preliminary decree and the non-judicial stamps are filed as per the valuation shown in the plaint and therefore the non-judicial stamps filed are sufficient. The matter was directed to be called on bench for hearing, when the petitioner s Counsel raised the objection. It is stated that the First Additional Judge felt that the government Pleader should be heard on the question of collection of stamps and the petitioner has to pay non-judicial stamps as per the provisions of the indian Stamp Act. The learned Judge held that in a suit for partition final decree is obviously an instrument of partition as defined in sub-section (15) of Section 2 of Indian Stamp Act and it is not disputed that the provisions of Indian Stamp Act are attracted for collection of stamp duty and relying on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in M. Anasuyamma vs. C. Lakshmanima wherein this Court after considering the Sections 2 (6), 2 (11), 2 (12), 3 and 33 (2) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and A. P. Stamp (Amendment) act, 1986 (Act 17 of. 1986) held that the A. P. Amending Act is not retrospective in nature - proper stamp duty payable on the instrument is the stamp duty payable on the date of the execution of instrument and not on the date of its presentation into Court - Amending Act applicable only to documents executed on or after 16-8-1986, the date of commencement of the said Act and not to those executed before the said date. The learned Judge rejected the contention of the petitioner that the production of basic value certificate at the time of registration of the suit is to enable the Court to collect non-judicial stamps at the time of passing of the final decree, therefore the value mentioned in the plaint is the criteria for collection of stamp duty. An "instrument of partition" is defined under Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act as under: "instrument of partition" means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severally, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition and a memorandum regarding past partition. " as per the provisions of the Stamp Act stamp duty has to be paid as per Article 40 of Schedule I-A and the relevant factor for collection of non-judicial stamps is the date of execution of the document. As passing of the final decree in a partition suit has to be treated as