The legal provisions under the Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act were interpreted to determine the admissibility and stamp duty requirements for the document (Ex.P/2). The document was found to be a memorandum acknowledging an earlier partition, which did not require registration or stamp duty as per the legal provisions.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8-9-2009 by which an application under Order XIII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code filed on behalf of defendant/petitioner has been rejected, the defendant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Sans unnecessary detail, the facts lie in narrow compass, suffice it to say that a suit for declaration and injunction has been filed by plaintiff/respondent for eviction of the defendant/petitioner from the tenanted premises on the relationship of the landlord and tenant on the grounds envisaged under section 12(1) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendant/petitioner by filing written statement refuted the plaint averments and prayed that the suit be dismissed. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues and the plaintiff/respondent after examining his witnesses, closed his evidence.

3. According to the averments made in the memorandum of writ petition, when the case was listed by learned trial Court for the evidence of defendant/petitioner, an application under Order XIII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code was submitted by him praying therein that the document (Ex.P/2) be held to be inadmissible in evidence and the evidence adduced in respect to Ex.P/2 may be rejected and may not be read in evidence. The crux of the application on the basis of which the relief in it has been claimed is that the document (Ex.P/2) has been executed on a paper not having proper stamp duty and the same is also not a registered document, although the document is for partition of the property having valuation more than Rs. 100/-.

4. The application has been opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing written reply and in the reply it has been contended that the document (Ex.P/2) is nothing but an acknowledgment of the earlier oral partition effected during the life time of Awa Ji Rao. The said document cannot be said to be a deed of partition and, hence, the memorandum of partition acknowledging the earlier partition is not at all required to be registered or any stamp duty is required on the said document and, therefore, the application be dismissed.

5. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has dismissed the application.

6. In this manner, the present petition has been filed by the defendant/ petitioner.

7. Shri M. B. Mangal, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner, by hammering the impugned order of learned trial Court on the touchstone and anvil of sub-section (15) of section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by M. P. Amended Act, has contended that even the memorandum of partition acknowledging the earlier partition is required to be reduced in writing on the stamp according to the stamp valuation which has been envisaged in Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act as amended by the M. P. Amended Act and in this regard, learned counsel has invited our attention to clause 43 and has contended that the instrument of partition is to be executed on the paper having the same stamp duty as for a Bond (No. 12) for the amount of the market value of the separated share of shares of the property and because the document (Ex.P/2) is not having the requisite stamp duty, the same is inadmissible in evidence.

8. It has also been put forth by the learned counsel that if the document (Ex.P/2) is taken into consideration in proper perspective, since, it is a document of partition having value more than Rs. 100/-, the same is compulsorily registrable according to section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and for this another reason, the document (Ex.P/2) is inadmissible in evidence. On these premised submissions, it has been argued by learned counsel that by allowing this petition the impugned order of learned trial Court be set aside and the application filed under Order XIII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code be allowed and it may be held that the document (Ex.P/2) is inadmissible in evidence.

9. Combating the afore