SANJIV KHANNA, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant herein. Mr. Nitin Jain along with. five others, who are the respondents 1-5 in the present Appeal had filed a suit No. 946/2000 for partition and rendition of accounts against the respondents 6-14. It was stated in the Suit that the appellant and the respondents herein belong to one family and are members of S. P. Jain (HUF ). The members of the said huf had also constituted smaller HUFs. Details of the properties owned by the said HUFs are mentioned in the annexure to the suit.

( 2 ) THE appellant and the respondents herein filed IA No. 2592/2001 under Order XXIII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) for compromise. Paragraphs 2, 3 and the prayer clause in the application are relevant and are reproduced below:- "2. That the parties are in relation to each other. The plaintiffs are children of the defendants No. 2 to 5 and Nos. 7 to 10, and the defendants no. 2 to 5 are the sons of the defendants No. 1 and 6. The parties are constituents of various bigger and smaller HUFs, viz S. P. Jain (HUF) and others.

( 3 ) THAT during the pendency of the present proceedings, the parties hereto have negotiated and arrived at a settlement. In pursuant to the settlement, parties distributed the moveable and immovable properties. The possession of respective portions have also been taken over by the parties. The properties stood orally partitioned. Parties so as to avoid any dispute in future have decided to incorporate the terms of settlement in the present application and the same are as follows:-

. Property No. H-32, Sainik Farm New Delh. E-7, Kalindi Colony, New Delh. 17. 9% share in Tower-A of the premises constructed at Plot Nos. 5 and 7, Serial No. 82, Varsova, Mumbai

( 4 ) IN the facts and circumstances explained above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to decree the suit in terms of settlement detailed in preceding paras.

"3. By Order dated 23rd April, 2001, the statements of the parties were recorded by the learned Single Judge and aforesaid application was allowed accepting the compromise. It was also recorded as under:- "the compromise is accepted and recorded. Decree, as prayed, in terms of the compromise, is granted. LA. 2952/2001 and Annexures A and B thereto shall form part of the decree. "

4. The Registry, however, did not prepare the decree-sheet on the ground that the same can be drawn after valuation report of all the properties is placed on record and the stamp duty @ 1% under Article 45 of the Stamp Act is paid. Office note dated 4th May, 2002 to this affect was prepared.

( 5 ) THE appellant filed an application being LA. No. 13902/2006, which was dismissed vide the impugned Order dated 13th December, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge in the impugned Order has held that no family arrangement much less oral family agreement of partition was alleged and therefore the parties must comply with the office note of the Registry and only on payment of stamp duty the parties will be entitled to the decree-sheet.

( 6 ) A Partition Deed is an instrument of partition and has been defined in Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act. The said investment is chargeable to duty as per Schedule 1, Article 45 of the Stamp Act. Stamp duty payable on an instrument of partition is @ 1% of the value of the property. A decree of partition passed by a Court is also an instrument of partition as defined in section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act, which reads as under:-

"2 (15 ). "instrument of partition" means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue-authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition. "

( 7 ) HOWEVER, Courts have recognised oral partitions in cases of joint families. An oral partition is not an instrument of partition as