The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order that admitted a past partition memorandum to evidence without requiring registration or stamp duty. The Court held a past transaction memorandum not liable for such duties.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Dr . JUSTI CE SHAMEEM AKTHER CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.1 8 2 1 of 2 0 1 9
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/ defendant, challenging the interlocutory order dated 05.07.2019 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sathupally, wherein the Court below received the document dated 22.04.1980 as a Partition List/ Memorandum of past partition and held that it does not require registration and stamp duty and can be received in evidence.
2 . Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused
the record.
3 . Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/ defendant would contend that the impugned order dated 05.07.2019 is erroneous and against the law relating to registration and stamp duty. There was no earlier partition, as determined by the Court below. Therefore, the disputed document, dated 22.04.1980 cannot be received in evidence and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs supported the impugned order and contended that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
2
5 . In view of the submissions made by both sides, the point for determination is:
“ W h et h er t h e in t er locu t or y or der dat ed 0 5 .0 7 .2 0 1 9 passed in O.S.No.1 9 of 2 0 0 6 by t h e Sen ior Civil Ju dge, Sat h u pally, is liable t o be set aside.”
6 . A perusal of the impugned order shows that the Court below, while dealing with the subject matter of the disputed document, dated 22.04.1980, extracted its contents which are in ‘Telugu’ and also examined the contentions raised by both the sides. The Court below ultimately held that since the disputed document dated 22.04.1980 demonstrates only past partition, it does not require registration and stamp duty. The Court below relied upon the decision reported in Eu r avar am Leen ak ar a Reddy Vs. E.Ragh u n at h a Reddy1 wherein, it was held that once a document is a memorandum of past transaction and when the partition of the properties was not effected, such document is not liable for stamp duty and registration. On the other hand, the revision petitioner/ defendant, to substantiate his contention, relied upon the decision reported in Kh aj a Habeebu ddin vs. Md.I br ah im2 . The said decision is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the Court below is justified in passing the impugned order holding that the document dated 22.04.1980 is a partition list/ memorandum of past partition and it does not
1 1997(2)AWR 1988 = Laws(APH) 1997 (7) 95
2 2004(3) ALT 15
3
require registration and stamp duty. There is no legal infirmity in the order under challenge. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr . SHAMEEM AKTHER, J Date: 22nd January, 2020. Vvr
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the interlocutory order dated 05.07.2019 admitting a past partition memorandum without registration and stamp duty is liable to be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Eurovaram Leenakara Reddy Vs. E.Raghunatha ReddyExplained¶6
Eurovaram Leenakara Reddy Vs. E.Raghunatha Reddy
Khaja Habeebuddin vs. Md.IbrahimDistinguished¶6
Khaja Habeebuddin vs. Md.Ibrahim
Petitioner/Defendant
Respondents/Plaintiffs
Shameem Akther
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
