Judgment.-The petitioner filed a suit for directing the defendants to execute and register a partition deed in the terms of the written agreement, dated 7th January, 1947, entered into between him and the defendants. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that the suit agreement itself amounted to a regular instrument of partition and not having been properly stamped and registered, it was invalid and not admissible in evidence for " any purpose whatsoever and a suit based on such a document was not maintainable. Thereupon a preliminary issue was raised as follows:- "Whether the document dated, 7-1-1947 is not valid in the absence of registration and proper stamp?" The learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore held that the document, though styled an agreement, was itself a deed of partition by which the joint owners divided their property in severalty and was therefore liable to stamp duty under Article 45 of the Indian Stamp Act. He further held that it followed that under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act the document could not be admitted in evidence for any purpose unless proper stamp duty and penalty was paid. He did not decide the question whether the instrument was one falling under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and so could not be admitted in evidence under section 49 of that Act. He thought that question could be considered only after the plaintiff had paid the stamp duty and penalty on the instrument. The plaintiff was directed to give necessary particulars for fixing the stamp duty and penalty. The plaintiff seeks to have this order revised. At the outset I must remark on the rather curious procedure adopted by the learned Judge. If an objection is taken to the admissibility of a document on the ground that it is not stamped and registered, he must first decide, both the questions.. If he finds that the document requires registration and therefore is inadmissible, being unregistered, the document itself will have to be rejected. The Court cannot first ask the document to be stamped and thereafter decide whether it would require registration. The learned Judge erred in holding that the suit agreement fell within the definition of an instrument of partition in section 2, clause 15 of the Indian Stamp Act. The Court cannot first ask the document to be stamped and thereafter decide whether it would require registration. The learned Judge erred in holding that the suit agreement fell within the definition of an instrument of partition in section 2, clause 15 of the Indian Stamp Act. The material part of the document in question is as follows: “Agreement entered into this 7th day of January 1947 among us (1) Andamuthu Goundan, (2) Palaniswami Goundan, (3) Devasikamani Goundan and (4) Kalianna Goundan, sons of Alagappai Goundar, residing at Mathupalayam village cusba, Erode taluk: As mentioned in the varthamanam letter executed by us on 6-7-1946 excluding the properties. set apart for temple management by the first party of us, the rest of the properties mentioned in schedules A, B, C, D hereunder which are our self-acquired and ancestral family properties have been allotted by the panchayatdars to the first, second, third and fourth of us respectively and we have accepted the same. We agree that if any one of us should act contrary to the said arrangement it shall be open to the others to seek redress through Court and the person so acting contrary shall be liable to make good to the others, the loss that may be occasioned by such conduct. Within one month from the date of this agreement we shall at our common expense execute and register a partition deed as per the schedules.” Instrument of partition is defined in the Stamp Act as “any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any Revenue authority or civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition.” Now it is clear that by this instrument the co-owners do not purport to divide their joint property in severalty, nor do they agree to divide the property. There is mention of the fact that the panchayatdars had allotted properties to each of the co-owners and there is the term that the parties will have a regular deed of partition executed and registered. Having regard to the contents of this document, I do not think that the rulings in In re Vasanji Haribhai1 and Rajangam Aiyar v. Rajangam Aiyar2, have any application. Having regard to the contents of this document, I do not think that the rulings in In re Vasanji Haribhai1 and Rajangam Aiyar v. Rajangam Aiyar2, have any application. In In re Vasanji Haribhai1, the document after reciting an award by the arbitrators went on to say: “We bind ourselves by this agreement to divind movable and immovable property, and effects, outstandings and debts and all other things according to the amended award, and give and receive to and from one another possession thereof.” Here is obviously an express agreement to divide property in accordance with the terms of an award. It will therefore fall within the definition of an instrument of partition. In Rajangam Aiyar v. Rajangam Aiyar2, one of the terms of the agreement was that till a partition deed was executed and registered, the agreement itself should be in force and each should severally enjoy the movable property, which he individually possesses and that the rights of parties would be governed till then by the agreement itself. It was held that the document was chargeable as a contract of partition which falls within section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act. As I have pointed out above, the document in this case does not either purport to divide the properties, nor does it contain an agreement to divide the properties. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside. He will proceed with the other issues in the case. There will be no order as to costs. K.C. ----- Petition allowed.