( 1 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff. In the course of trial the plaintiff sought to file and mark the partition lists in support of the plea of allotment of properties to the members of the family. The defendant objected to the filing of the said lists on the ground that they conititute a partition deed and liable to be impounded and duty and penalty has to be collected and till then the documents cannot be marked. The documents are lists of properties comprising dry and wet lands which fell to the share of each of the members of the family who are father and sons in accordance with the decision dated 15-4-1963. All the parties appear to have signed on each listen 15-4-1963 and the said date is corrected as 16-4-1963. The court below on a consideration of the facts and circumstances and survey of the decisions touching the issue held that the partition lists arc tantamount to instrument of partition as defined under clause 15 of Art. 2 of the Indian STAMP ACT, 1899 and they are liable to be impounded and they cannot be admitted in evidence till the duty and penalty are levied. Aggrieved by the said order this revision-petition is filed.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lists sought to be adduced contain the properties allotted to each member of the family pursuant to the partition affected previously and as such not liable to stamp duty at all. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the partition lists constitute a memorandum of partition liable to duty.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in I. L. R. 7 Madras 385. The facts in this decision may be recalled. In 1877 all the parties to the suit executed an agreement to abide by the arbitration of 5 individuals regarding the division of family properties and the arbitrators accordingly divided the properties and each coparcener has been living separately and enjoying the properties allotted to him in the arbitration. The issue is whether exhibits 2 and 3 constituting a note recording the allotment of the propertics in the partition are liable to stamp duty. It was held that the exhibits cannot be considered as an award of partition and does not by itself operate to release the joint interest in the properties. In M. R. Thekura vs. Sukhraj Singhi it is held that a partition chitti which merely recorded that certain persons named therein have been allotted the properties described therein that a partition need not be registered under Sec. 17 (1) (b) and it also does not require to be stamped as it is not an instrument of partition.

( 4 ) THE definition of Instrument of partition under Sch. I of the stamp ACT, 1899 is as follows :"any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severatly 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 and a partition. "the tenor, texture and get-up of the document has to be disceerned to infer whether it is an instrument of partition attracting duty. If the document purports to bring into effect the division and allotment of properties and if the essentials of the mode of partition arc incorporated it is a partition deed liable to duty. The allotment of properties implicit, pursuant to an anterior oral partition, when reduced to writing cannot be given the label of partition deed. The recording of mere division or allotment of properties is only a reminder of the past transaction of partition and intended generally for accurate reference of the partition effected previously. In the event of actual partition and preparation of partition lists being contemporaneous they cannot be disassociated and the entirety of events has to be considered as instrument of partition. Even if the partition is oral but when it is intertwined with the allotment of properties which is reduced to writing at the