B. N. Chaturvedi, J.

( 1 ) A Suit for declaration, partition, rendition of accounts and injunction was filed by Sh. Rajinder Kumar, plaintiff against his six brothers, a sister and mother (since deceased) which was disposed of in terms of a compromise between the parties by an order dated 18th of August, 2000, operative part of which reads as under :

"accordingly, the application is allowed. The parties will be bound by the terms of the compromise. Terms contained in compromise application, family Settlement alongwith annexures and Disclaimer Agreement alongwith annexures shall form part of the decree sheet. . . . "the Registry wrote to the parties concerned vide their letter dated 11th february, 2002 to file a valuation report of the immovable properties from an approved valuer and to supply requisite non-judicial stamp papers for drawing up the decree, which is being questioned by Sh. Iqbal Singh, defendant no. 1, by means of instant application.

( 2 ) IT is pleaded that late Sh. Ganga Bishan, the father of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 7 and husband of defendant No. 8 (since deceased) had executed a registered Will dated 25th February, 1989 bequeathing his immovable and movable properties to the plaintiff and the defendants specifying their respective shares therein. The defendants No. 1, 2,4,6,7 and 8 clearly made mention of the said Will in their common written statement. The same was, of course, disputed by the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and 5. During the pendency of the suit, it is stated, the parties arrived at an oral family settlement on 1. 4. 2000, determining and specifying the shares of the respective parties in the properties, movable and immovable, left by their father late Sh. Ganga Bishan. A document evidencing such family settlement ws executed in writing on 4th April, 2000 which was later followed by execution of a registered disclaimer Agreement dated 16th May, 2000. Shares in the immovable properties of late Sh. Ganga Bishan, forming subject-matter of the suit, were allotted to respective parties to the suit in terms of the Will dated 25th of February, 1989. The parties to the suit accordingly retained possession of properties which fell to their respective shares. An application under Order 23 Rule 3, CPC was filed before this Court in pursuance of compromise so arrived at between the parties attaching therewith all the relevant papers including registered disclaimer Agreement dated 16th of May, 2000 and family settlement dated 4th of April, 2000 with annexures thereto. In view of aforesaid, the learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the compromise/settlement in question did not create or declare on its own force any interest in the properties but only accepted the dictates of the Will left by their father, the decree passed in terms of such a compromise is not required to be engrossed on a non-judicial stamp paper and no stamp duty is chargeable thereon as the same did not amount to an instrument of partition as contemplated under section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act {for short the Act }. Reference was made to a decision of this Court in "sheikh Mukarramuddin v. Sheikh rahimuddin and Ors. ", AIR 1989 Delhi 268 : 1990 (18) DRJ 11 to support the aforesaid argument. It was further contended that a decree passed on the basis of a compromise relating to partition of immovable properties which formed subject-matter of the suit does not require registration. A decision of this Court in "p. K. Nangia v. Land and Development Officer, New Delhi and anr. ", AIR 1988 Delhi 260 {db} : 1988 (14) DRJ 112 and a decision of supreme Court in "bachan Singh v. Kartar Singh and Ors", JT 2001 {10} SC 64 were relied upon in this context. It was accordingly sought to be maintained that no stamp duty is chargeable in the present case for drawing up the decree. Alternatively, it was argued that the oral family settlement took place on 1st April, 2000 which was reduced into writing on 4th of April, 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document