Admissibility of a document as evidence based on its nature and the requirement for stamp duty and registration.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 30-7-1993 in O. S. No. 121 of 1984 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Warangal by the plaintiff on the ground that the order of the Court below is illegal and contrary to law.

( 2 ) NECESSARY facts of the case in brief are as under: The plaintiff filed the suit for partition of plaint a and b Schedule properties into three equal snares and for allotment of one such share. In support of his case during trial he summoned p. W. 2 Paka Komuraiah as his witness. While giving evidence P. W. 2 sought to exhibit a document dated 18-2-1980 for which the learned Counsel for the second defendant took objection on the ground that the said document is a partition deed, but not a document reciting past partition and therefore it is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp duty and registration. The lower court, after hearing the learned Counsel for both sides, held that the recitals of the document clearly show that it is a partition deed and not a document reciting earlier partition as it effects division of properties of the father of the parties and adjustment of shares as per equities worked out on that day itself and therefore it is compulsorily registerable and for want of the same, it is inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff-petitioner filed the present revision petition.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the Counsel for the second respondent.

( 4 ) I have gone through the order under revision and also the deed in question. The Court below has rightly held, in my opinion also, that the contents of the document would go to show dearly that it is a partition deed but not a document containing recitals of earlier partition. I see no irregularity or illegality in the order impugned. Therefore the order of the Court below is confirmed and the C. R. P. is dismissed, but without costs.