Arrangement recorded by Panchayat to be treated as a document for partition.

RAMAPRASADA RAO, C.J. :- This is a reference by the Board of Revenue under Section 57 of the Indian Stamp Act. The facts leading to the reference are as follows :- The respondent is the son of one Gurumani alias Mulliah Chettiar through his first wife. The said Gurumani got Rs. 50,000 in cash in a family partition between him and his brother Swaminatha Chettiar. This amount was entrusted to the respondent's uncle N.S.M.S. Swaminatha Chettiar to be divided at the time of partition between the respondent, his brothers and his father. Ponraj alias M. Kanagasabapathi Chettiar and Duraiswaminathan Chettiar are also the sons of the said Gurumani through his second wife. Disputes arose between the members of the family regarding the division of the family properties. A Panchayat was constituted fr the purpose of amicable adjustment between the contesting parties. At the Panchayat it was decided that a sum of Rs. 40,000 out of the amounts left in the custody of the said Swaminatha Chettiar and certain immovable properties should be given to the respondent and the balance amount of Rs. 10,000 with other properties should be given to the respondent's father and his step brothers. This arrangement was recorded by the Panchayatdars and all the contesting parties, namely, the respondent, his father and his step brothers accepted the arrangement made by the Panchayatdars. After the decision of the Panchayatdars, it appears that the respondent's father and his step brothers did not abide by the decision of the Panchayatdars and therefore it became necessary for the respondent to file a suit in O.S. No. 9 of 1971 on the file of the Sub Court, Sivaganga, against N.S.M.S. Swaminatha Chettiar for recovery of Rs. 40,000, as decided by the Panchayatdars. Even this suit is said to have been compromised. But what happened was that the decision of the Panchayatdars which was reduced to writing and which was accepted by all the concerned parties was filed in court. This document dated 20-8-1967, was impounded by the learned Subordinate Judge notwithstanding the adjustment of the main subject matter between the parties and it was sent to the Sub-Collector of Sivaganga for necessary adjudication regarding the stamp duty payable thereon. The Sub Collector levied a stamp duty including surcharge on stamp duty of Rs. 1614-40 and penalty of Rs. 5 under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act treating the document as an instrument of partition, Consequent, upon such adjudication, the Tahsildar was requested to collect the stamp duty. As against the memo demanding such collection of stamp duty, the respondents filed a revision to the Board of Revenue. The Board by its order dated 2-2-1976 was of the view that this document in question effected a division of the properties between the contesting claimants and expressed the view that the document is an agreement to partition properties belonging to co-owners and therefore it fell within the scope of Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act. The respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 737 of 1976, on the file of this court challenging the order of the Board of Revenue as above. This court while dismissing the writ petition directed the respondents to move the petitioner to make a reference under Section 57 of the Act. On a request made thereafter by the respondent, the petitioner has made the present reference under Section 57(1) apparently treating the earlier order made as its opinion on the subject. The question referred to us is -

"Whether the document in question is an agreement to partition the properties and falls within the scope of Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act".

It is common ground that whether an instrument is an instrument of partition or an agreement to that effect, it would nevertheless attract the same stamp duty as provided in Section 2(15) of the Act. Therefore it is necessary for us to look into the recitals of the document to find out whether the document in question is an instrument of p