An unstamped partition document is inadmissible for partition terms but may prove division in status if duly stamped.

1. This is a petition to revise the order of the Munsif - Magistrate, Secunderabad in O.S. No.31/1/1957 on his file holding that the document produced; by the plaintiff when he was deposing as P.W.1 in that suit was not admissible in evidence on the ground that it was 'an instrument of partition' and was not duly stamped and not, registered.

2. Two points have been argued before me by the learned Advocate for the plaintiff. They are as folows :
(a) that the document is not an 'instrument of partition' coming under S.2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act ; and
(b) that, in any case, even if it is an instrument of partition, it is admissible in evidence for proving division in status.

3. (a) Point No.1: In Bapayya v. Ramakrishnayya , 1938-1 Mad. LJ 582 : (AIR 1938 Mad. 568) it was held by the Madras High Court that where unregistered partition lists are sought to be put in for the purpose of proving a partition between the parties the question which the court has to decide is whether those documents constituted the bargain between the parties or whether they were merely the record of an already completed transaction. Therein it was also held that the question in such a case was whether there was a sufficient dissociation of the transaction from the documents and that the matter would not depend on the interval of time though where the interval is long, the dissociation may be more readily, inferred. This view has been affirmed and followed by decisions of this High Court.

4. In Board of Revenue v. Appalanarasimhulu , 1957-1 Andh WR 288 : ((S) AIR 1957 AP 237) a Full Bench of this Court held that a document which gives the joint properties owned by the co - owners and allots to each one of them the properties that have fallen to his share, and is duly signed by the parties to it, and attested by witnesses, is a document whereunder co - owners of joint properties divide their properties in severalty and is an instrument of partition within the meaning of S.2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act .

5. In Veerappan v. Mylai Udayan , AIR 1925 Mad. 1097 it was held that the question as to whether a document was an instrument of partition coming under S.2 (15) of the Stamp Act or whether it was merely a memorandum of partition which did not come under that provision was a pure question of fact which had to be decided on a perusal of the actual document. In the present case, the document contains the following features.
(a) The document itself is called Farkathanama (Partition deed).
(b) The document does not mention any previous partition as having taken place.
(c) In the plaint itself, the cause of action was mentioned as having arisen on 31/10/1928 when the partition took place. The date of the document is 31/10/1928.
(d) The document is signed by the parties and attested by witnesses.
I have also carefully perused the document. The learned District Munsif - Magistrate has considered and discussed the contents of the document and declared that it was 'an instrument of partition' with reference to various clinching and decisive features in it. I find that the learned Munsif - Magistrate has rightly decided the question of fact and held that it was an instrument of partition within the meaning of S.2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act .

6. (b) Point No.2 : In Subba Rao v. Mahalakshmamma . AIR 1930 Mad. 883 it was held that if a document which requires registration as a partition document is unregistered, it may be used to show division in status though it is inadmissible in evidence to prove the terms of the partition.

7. The learned Advocate for the respondent relies on the decision in Ayyakutti Mankondan v. Pe