The engrossment of a final partition decree on stamp paper is a distinct, post-adjudicatory fiscal obligation under the Stamp Act, independent of court fee payments. It serves to render the decree admissible in evidence and is not restricted by the limitation period applicable to execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

ISSUE INVOLVED: ENGROSSMENT OF FINAL DECREE OF PARTITION ON STAMP PAPERS: CONCEPT, APPLICABILITY AND LIMITATION

1. Heard Shri Shreyas Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises challenge to an order dated 05.05.2023, whereby the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Mainpuri, (A.D.J.) has allowed an application filed by the respondents seeking engrossment of a final decree dated 23.04.1984 on non-judicial stamp papers.

BRIEF FACTS

3. In a suit for partition, being O.S. No. 68 of 1972, parties entered into a compromise and, based thereupon, a preliminary decree was drawn on 16.07.1980. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 applied for preparation of joint Kurra and paid requisite court fees. Final decree was drawn on 23.04.1984 wherein the share of plaintiff and defendant no. 1 was determined as 11/24 and collective share of remaining defendants No. 2 and 4 to 9 was determined as 13/24.

4. Pursuant to an application filed by some of the defendants other than the defendant no. 1, the order impugned dated 05.05.2023 was passed permitting engrossment of final decree on non-judicial stamp papers.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced following submissions:-

(i) The final decree was drawn only in relation to plaintiff and defendant no. 1, no decree was drawn in favour of remaining defendants and, therefore, they had no right to get engrossment of the decree on stamp papers.

(ii) The First Appeal No. 407 of 1982 filed by the remaining defendants challenging the final decree was dismissed by this Court on merits by order dated 14.12.2012 and, therefore, non-declaration of their shares attained finality, however, the said aspect has been ignored by the learned A.D.J.

(iii) A Commissioner was appointed by the trial court and, in terms of Order XXVI Rule 14 CPC, a report was prepared by him proposing a partition scheme wherein only two kurras had been carved out, first, pink kurra (wrongly mentioned as red colour in first appellate court’s judgment) belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 and, second, green kurra (jointly co- owned) belonging to remaining non-desirous defendants no. 2 and 4 to 9 and once the final decree was drawn solely and explicitly in favour of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, the same has to be read as it is and, therefore, permitting engrossment of the said decree at the instance of third parties, was not permissible.

(iv) There was no mention of the joint green kurra of other non-desirous defendants in the decree and this Court, while dismissing the first appeal, had considered specific objections of the defendants no. 6 to 9 under issue/point No. 1 holding that there is no principle in law that there could be only one final decree of partition amongst co-sharers, rather there may be more than one final decree depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

(v) It is indicated in the Commissioner’s report that only plaintiff and defendant no. 1 had