Nagamohandas, J.

Petitioners and respondent No.3 are defendants and respondent No.1 is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In this order for convenience, the parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court.

2. Plaintiff filed O.S.No.203/2005 against the defendants for partition and separate possession of his 7/30th share in the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement inter alia contending that on 25.04.1987, a partition had already taken place and therefore the question of again partitioning plaint schedule properties will not arise. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed issues and the plaintiff completed his evidence on his side. At the time of evidence of DW-1 he tried to produce the partition deed dated 25.04.1987. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff objected for marking the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 on the ground that it is not duly stamped and that the same is unregistered. The Trial Court after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order upholding the objections raised by the plaintiff and refused to admit the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 in the evidence of DW-1. Hence this writ petition by defendants 1 to 3.

3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

4. It is not in dispute that the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 relied on by defendants 1 to 3 is not duly stamped and the same is not registered. The Trial Court noticed from the averments of the partition deed dated 25.04.1987, a division of immovable properties belonging to the joint family had taken place in the deed. Further the defendants do not dispute that the value of the immovable property divided in the partition deed is more than Rs.100/-. On the basis of these admitted facts, the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 is insufficiently stamped and it requires compulsory registration but not registered.

5. Sec.34 of Karnataka Stamp Act (for short, Stamp Act) specifies that an insufficiently stamped document cannot be admitted in evidence unless duty and penalty is paid. I had the occasion to consider the scope of Sec.34 of the Stamp Act in C.K. Raviprasanna Vs. T.K. Gowramma ILR 2007 Karnataka 2807 and I held as under:-

“7. Section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act mandates that no document shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose, unless it is duly stamped. Section 34 of the Act puts a complete embargo and bar against admissibility of such a document which is not stamped or which is not duly stamped and the same cannot be used for any purpose. In the instant case, under the agreement of sale dated 27.11.2004, the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the schedule property is in part performance of the agreement. Therefore, the agreement of sale in question falls under Article 5 E. Therefore, the stamp duty is payable as per the conveyance specified in Article 20. Admittedly, the agreement of sale dated 27.11.2004 is insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the agreement of sale cannot be admitted in evidence unless duty and penalty is paid. Hence the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is in accordance with law”

6. Therefore, the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 relied on by the defendants 1 to 3 is insufficiently stumped and the same is inadmissible in evidence unless duty and penalty is paid on this document. In the event of defendants 1 to 3 pays duty and penalty on this partition deed, then the Trial Court shall admit the same in evidence.

7. The Trial Court on going through the averments in the partition deed dated 25.04.1987 held that a division had taken place in respect of immovable properties. The defendants 1 to 3 do not dispute the fact that the value of the immovable properties partitioned in the deed dated 25.04.1987 was more than Rs.100/-. Sec.49 of the Registration Act specifies that no document required registration under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act if not registered shall not be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such