N. Venkata Ramana Reddy vs Smt. Gollapalle Reddemma

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The petitioner herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted the suit OS. No. 292 of 1990 in the Court of the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the respondent herein for permanent injunction. The evidence of the plaintiff was over. The defendant was in the box. She wanted to produce and prove certain document. At that stage, an objection was raised by the plaintiff- petitioner herein stating that the said document is a "partition deed and it is not properly stamped and registered and therefore it cannot be exhibited in the suit and cannot be received in evidence.

The maner was carried to the High Court by filing C.R.P. No. 1383 of 1996. The learned Judge of this Court disposed of the revision with an observation that the document in question is not an agreement of partition. But by reading the contents of the document, this Court held that it is a partition deed itself and with the help of the said deed, the defendant-respondent herein was put in possession. In other words, this Court held the document, which was tried to be marked by D.W.1, is a partition deed. Accordingly, the High Court remitted the matter back to the trial Court with a direction to recover the deficit stamp duty and penalty, if any. The Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle after hearing both sides held that it is an agreement of partition and therefore it does not require any stamp duty as the document was written on a stamp paper of Rs. 7.50 ps. At that stage, the plaintiff-petitioner herein filed LA. No. 1068/98 bringing to the notice of the trial Court that the trial Court was not competent to give adverse finding to the finding given by the High Court and prayed for review of the order. The said LA., was dismissed. Hence the revision.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent though she was served.

Once the High Court has held that the disputed document is a partition deed and not an agreement of partition, then the trial Court was not competent to give adverse finding to the finding given by the High Court. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the aforesaid LA. The trial Court is directed to collect the deficit stamp duty and also penalty as per rules and then only allow the defendant-respondent herein to produce and prove the document in the trial Court. It is now brought to my notice that the said document was already marked. If already (sic) and if the deficit stamp duty and penalty are not paid by the defendant, the document be eschewed from the evidence.

With these directions, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. No costs.