ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed in the suit docket in O.S. No. 195 of 2010 dated 26.11.2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge overruled the objection raised by the learned counsel for plaintiff regarding marking of document dated 05.08.2015.

2. The Revision Petitioner filed suit against the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share of plaint schedule properties consisting of item Nos. 1 to 12. During the course of trial of the suit, the respondents/defendants intended to mark document dated 05.08.2015 said to be partition list as an exhibit in their evidence. For which, learned counsel representing for the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court objected for the same. Then after hearing both sides, learned trial Judge passed orders, which reads as under:

“the learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposed for marking the first document contending that the same being an unregistered partition list is inadmissible in evidence and it requires stamp duty penalty. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Kapu Anasuyamma vs. V.K. Malla Reddy and Others, 2012 (3) ALD 388 regarding inadmissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed in evidence.

Upon perusal, the first document does not bare any nomenclature, perusal of its contents shows that it was executed in acknowledgement of the earlier partition effected between the parties. Itself it is only a memorandum of past partition, but not a partition deed. Hence, registration is not required unless by virtue of such document a right is created for the first time in the property worth more than Rs. 100/-. Hence, there is no need to collect stamp duty penalty on the partition list dated 24.06.1986. The observation of this Court in this regard is forfeited by the decision of our Honourable High Court in Ms. Kavitha Goud by GPA vs. N. Sudarshan Reddy, AIR 2004 A.P. 326 (DB). Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff regarding marking the partition list is unsustainable. Both parties are instructed to proceed with further trial.”

3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred present Revision Petition stating that order of the trial Court in jumping into the conclusion that the partition list dated 24.06.1986 is memorandum of partition does not require stamp duty and registration is contrary to law. He submits that Respondent No. 3 filed an unregistered partition deed dated 24.06.1986 with a petition to condone the delay in filing the document which respondent No. 3 intended to mark in his evidence for establishing the partition among the petitioner and respondents but not for collateral purpose. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that trial Court erred in misinterpreting the partition deed dated 24.06.1986 as partition list and trial Court ought to have rejected the admission of the document into evidence as it is not registered and not properly stamped as required under Section 17 of Registration Act. He prays to allow the revision petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.K.Harinarayana. He would submit that the document dated 24.06.1986 is a partition deed which created right in immovable property as it also contains the recitals that father shall enjoy A-schedule property alloted to him with a limited rights which amounts to creating future rights in favour of others which requires registration under Section 17 of Indian Registration Act. He would further submit that the document is also contains different schedules of properties with boundaries except recital that oral partition already taken place, the recitals of document clearly shows that it is a partition deed requires registration which also insufficiently stamp