1955 Supreme(Mad) 260
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr.P.V.Rajamannar, Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Panchapakesa Ayyar and Mr.Justice RajagopalaAyyangar, JJ.
The Board of Revenue of Madras, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by its Secretary
Versus
Moideen Rowther
Case Referred No. 79 of 1954.
Decided On : 07 October 1955
The Government Pleader (C.A.Vythialingam) on behalf of the State.
M.R.Krishnan and R.Sitaraman for the Respondents.
Passing of decree on plain paper or on insufficiently stamped paper.
Headnote:Indian Stamp Act, 1899- Section 33 -Suit for partition -Requisite stamps not furnished- Held, Court has jurisdiction to pass decree and send the same to Collector for impounding of levy and penalty .
"(1) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, on the failure of the parties in this case to furnish the requisite stamps, had the power to draw up the decree for partition?
(2) Whether the learned Subordinate Judge can impound the decree for partition drawn up by him under section 33 of the Stamp Act?"
There can be no doubt that a final decree for partition passed by a Civil Court is an instrument of partition as defined in clause (15) of section 2 of the Stamp Act. It follows that such a decree can only be engrossed on stamp papers of sufficient value. It was held in Jotindra Mohan Tagore v. Bejoy Chand Mahatap1, that a decree for partition to be operative must be engrossed on stamp paper, as required by the Stamp Act, and, until the Judge signs the decree so engrossed, it cannot be said that the suit has terminated. In Satyanandan v. Nammayya2, this decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned Judges in that case observed:
"It is well settled that a final decree for partition has no existence as a decree until it is engrossed on the proper non-judicial stamp paper; till that is done the suit is pending."
The question is if the parties do not furnish stamp papers of the requisite value on which the decree could be engrossed, whether the Court could