The registration of a partition deed is not mandatory under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, and insufficiently stamped documents can be admitted in evidence upon payment of stamp duty.

JUDGMENT :

S. M. Modak, J.

1. The only issue arisen in this Writ Petition is “whether the trial Court was justified in sending unregistered Partition Deed to the Collector of Stamps for payment of requisite stamp and penalty”.

2. This issue arose during the trial of Regular Civil Suit No.105 of 2014 pending in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division–Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur. It was a Suit for Partition filed by the present Respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with others. Whereas, present Petitioner is Defendant No.1. It was a Suit for Partition and declaration about sale- deed dated 11th February 2003 being not binding on the Plaintiff. The Suit property is as follows:-

(a) Two (2) lands described in Para No.1(A) of the Plaint.

(b) Five (5) R.C.C., shops and one (1) tin shade constructed on that land.

3. Present Petitioner refuted the averments in the Plaint and he has pleaded about Partition of the Suit land already taken place and recorded in the unregistered document dated 18th January 2013 titled as “Noting of partition by way of family arrangement”. He claims, as per the said arrangement, two Suits lands were allotted to his exclusive ownership. It is pertinent to note that the said agreement is challenged by the Plaintiffs by way of an amendment to the Suit.

Insufficient stamping

4. The issue about insufficient stamping had come when this agreement was posed to Plaintiff during cross-examination conducted on behalf of Petitioner–Defendant No.1. The trial Court after hearing the parties, passed following order on 13th January 2022:-

“ORDER :

1. Unregistered partition deed dated 18.1.2013 is impounded. It be sent to Collector of Stamp, Kolhapur for registration, payment of requisite stamps and penalty.

2. Case is time bound as per directions of Honourable High Court. The Collector of Stamp, Kolhapur is directed to comply and report about the impound the document within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

3. The authentic copy of unregistered partition deed be kept on record and original be sent for necessary compliance.

4. Issue Yadi on P.F.”

Challenge in Writ Petition

5. This order is challenged in this Writ Petition. Subsequently, the Collector of Stamps has ascertained the amount of stamp and vide his letter dated 12th December 2022 (Page No.49) informed to the Defendant No.1–Balaso Patil–present Petitioner and Defendant No.3– Panditrao Patil (deceased) to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,75,100/- (Rupees Two Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Hundred) and penalty of Rs.6,60,300/- (Rupees Six Lakh Sixty Thousand Three Hundred).

This order is also challenged by way of this Writ Petition.

Objection as to maintainability of the Petition

6. Learned Advocate Shri.Anand Patil took an objection about the maintainability of the Petition for the reason, stamp duty ascertained by the Collector cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition and there is an alternate efficacious remedy available as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Even, learned AGP reiterated the said objection. Whereas, according to learned Advocate Shri.D.B.Patil, the primary objection is to the order passed by the Civil Court and the order of Collector is ancillary. I agree to his submission. If, the order of Civil Court goes naturally, the order of Collector has to be set aside.

Hence, objection about maintainability is turned down.

Nature of document

7. According to Mr.Anand Patil, if the agreement is perused, one can find that few of the co-sharers have released their share in favour of other co-sharers and hence, this agreement has to be titled as “Release Deed” and not the “Deed of Recording Partition” and Article 46 to Schedule-I of the said Act is not applicable.

8. I have read the contents of the noting of Partition. It is true, the executant Rudragonda Patil–deceased Plaintiff No.1, Appaso Patil– deceased Plaintiff No.2, Panditrao Patil–deceased Defendant No.3, Tatyasaheb Patil–Plaintiff No.3, Madhukar Patil–Plaintiff No.4 and Gangubai Patil have either relinqu