M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.

1. In this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiffs, the challenge is to the order, dated 4.1.2019, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, whereby the learned Judge, while upholding the objection of the defendants, held that the document, dated 8.12.1956, is a partition deed and hence, the same is liable to be charged with stamp duty and penalty and that it cannot be admitted in evidence, even for collateral purposes, unless stamp duty and penalty are paid and collected.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs ('plaintiffs', for brevity) and, of Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendants ('defendants', for brevity). I have perused the material record.

3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:-'The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for a perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land with Mango garden of an extent of Acs. 6.34 cents in Thammayyapeta Bendapudi Gram Panchayat, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District morefully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants, having filed a written statement, are contesting the suit. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs tendered, for being marked as an exhibit, a document, dated 8.12.1956, styled as 'Sthirasti pampakamula jabitha' (immovable property partition list). When the said document is tendered through PW 1 for being marked as an exhibit, learned Counsel for the defendants objected for making the same on the ground that the said document is not stamped and registered though it is required to be stamped and registered and that it is inadmissible in evidence. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the contents of the said document reflect that the partition had taken place some time back and that the document is only a record of past transaction and that it is only a memorandum of past partition or a partition list evidencing past partition and, therefore, the document does not require to be charged with any stamp duty and is not a compulsorily registerable document. The trial Court, having referred to the contents of the document as well as the precedents cited before it upheld the objection of the defendants and recorded a finding that the document in question is a deed of partition and is liable to be charged with required stamp duty and that unless the stamp duty and penalty are paid, it cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiffs preferred this revision.'

4. At the hearing, learned Counsel for both the sides fairly stated that as per the ratio in the decision in Ram Rattan (dead) by LRs. v. Bajrang Lal and others, (1978) 3 SCC 236, the trial Court before which the objection is taken about admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case.

5. It is also pertinent to note the ratio in the decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 548 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1158, wherein the Supreme Court has made it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. Therefore, the trial Court need not be found fault for judicially determining the objection that was taken about the admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, as the trial Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case.

6. Now, the short question is as to whether the document in question is a deed of partition chargeable with duty or whether it is a memorandum of partition or a partition list evidencing a transaction of p