The main legal point established is that documents can qualify as instruments of partition even if they do not explicitly describe the parties as co-owners, and the stamp duty should be based on the value of the separated smaller shares.

1. In this Civil Revision Petition the question to be decided is whether the documents marked as Exs. A and B, and described in the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, come within the definition of an instrument of partition, and if so, what is the correct stamp duty payable on them? Both these documents are styled as partition lists, one of them relating to the properties allotted to the share of Gurram Musal Naidu (defendant 1) and the other relating to the properties allotted to the share of Gurram Pedda Venkat-appa Naidu (the plaintiff). In order to determine the nature of these two lists put together, we have to pay attention to certain significant recitals contained in them. Ex. A begins with a sort of preamble as follows:

List (of bonds, etc.) which fell to the share of Gurram Musal Naidu in the matter of the determination of the shares of Gurram Musal Naidu, his first wifes son Pedda Venkatappa Naidu and Vengamma, wife of Ghenganna Naidu, in the bonds, documents, hand loans, etc., on a partition effected on 30th December 1908.

2. After giving the details of the several items of properties which fell to the share of Musal Naidu, it is stated that he has retained those properties in his possession and in regard to the aforesaid properties there is no litigation between him and the other two. It is further stated that they have settled their shares in the presence of the mediators who have also signed the list. It is wound up by a statement:

We have partitioned all the properties in Ohit-toor taluk except those properties in Karvet-nagar.

3. Similarly, in respect of the partition list relating to the properties allotted to the share of the plaintiff, the same preamble is found at the beginning. Later on we find the recital to this effect, namely, the bonds, documents, decrees, lands, and miscellaneous items coming up to the amount referred to above, have been delivered to me by my father Musal Naidu in the presenoe of the respectable panchayatdars who have signed below, and I have taken delivery of the same. Henceforward, there shall be mere kinship as between me and my elder sister and my father Gurram Musal Naidu. As regards the properties, there is no dispute to be enforced by litigation. Except the properties in Karvetnagar, we have settled in regard to the properties situate in Chittoor taluk.

4. There are also other covenants with regard to immovable properties, such as the enjoyment of eertain properties by the three persons in equal shares and the concurrence of all the three in the matter of effecting a sale of them. With respect to some other lands, the covenant is that they should be jointly enjoyed by all the three. Lastly, there is a clause to the effect, that except as regards the properties which fell to the share of the plaintiff, he has no claim to those which fell to the shares of his father and sister. Both these lists have been signed by all the three sharers. It is clear that the division of the properties, moveable and immovable, has been effected in this manner, in determination of the shares of the three persons in those properties. The very fact of the reference to the properties as those in which the three persons have certain shares, indicates that they purport at last to deal with them as co-owners. It is also clear that, after the effecting of such a division, each of the sharers has no claim or right or dispute in respect of the properties allotted to the other two persons. If the parties to these lists do not even purport to deal with these properties as co-owners, it is difficult to understand the significance of the preamble and also the later clause adverted to above. According to the definition of an instrument of partition given in Section 2, Clause 15, Stamp Act, it must be an instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty. There is no difficulty in holding that under Exs. A and B the parties have divided the properties in severalt