This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 14-9-2009 in O.S.No.193/2002 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

During the course of evidence, defendant No.1 sought to present two documents in evidence. They are, document dated 29-4-1989, styled as family settlement arrangement and document dated 29-9-1989, styled as an arrangement. The plaintiff objected to the marking of these documents on the ground that they are in the nature of settlement deeds which create rights in the parties and therefore, they require stamp duty and registration. The lower Court has sustained the objection with reference to document dated 29-4-1989 and rejected the objection relating to document dated 29-9-1989. Feeling aggrieved by the said order to the extent of refusing to receive the document dated 29-9-1989, defendant No.1 filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

At the hearing, Sri G.L.V. Ramana Murthy, learned counsel for defendant No.1, submitted that the document in question is a mere family arrangement which was reduced into writing what family members of defendant No.1 have earlier agreed to. According to the learned counsel, such an arrangement, though reduced into writing, is not liable for payment of stamp duty and registration. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on Krishna Beharilal (dead) by his legal representatives Vs. Gulabchand and others (AIR 1971 S.C. 1041), Hansa Industries (P) Ltd. and others Vs. Kidarsons Industries (P) Ltd. (AIR 2007 S.C. 18), Govt. of A.P. and others Vs. M. Krishnaveni and others (2006(7) SCC 365)and The Board of Revenue, Madras Vs. M. Swaminatha Chettiar (AIR 1980 Madras 97 (FB). Opposing the above contentions, Sri Srinivas Karra, learned counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in K.T. Afzal Khan Vs. Kunsetty Ramesh Babu and others (2005(1) ALT 696).

In order to resolve this controversy, it is necessary to refer to the relevant recitals of the document in question. As observed by the lower Court, the nomenclature of the document is described as family settlement arrangement. This agreement was entered into between the husband of defendant No.1, her mother-in-law and her brother-in-law, the plaintiff. It is recited in the said document that the father-in-law of defendant No.1 i.e., the father of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1, has got certain properties in family partition and a partition deed was registered on 4-8-1969 and that he has executed a Will giving life estate over 1/3rd of his share to his wife and the vested remainder in equal proportions to his sons, the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1. It is further recited that the mother-in-law of defendant No.1 has executed a Will on 24-6-1973 in respect of her self-acquired property as well as the properties inherited by her from her husband, in favour of the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1 and that as joint rights were created in their favour in the said Will and the mother-in-law of defendant No.1 has anticipated future disputes between the two brothers and in order to avoid such disputes, the rights were created in the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1 and the settlement arrangement is reduced to writing. It is also recited at the end of the document that depending upon the convenience of the parties, the family settlement will be registered in future.

Ordinarily, a document which conveys rights over immovable property worth Rs.100/-and above requires registration under the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. The question that requires to be considered in this case is whether such rights have been created in the parties by the family arrangement in question. The crucial words at page-2 of the document dated 29-9-1989, in Telugu vernacular, assume much significance. When translated,