JUDGMENT C.D. Parekh, J. - This writ petition has been directed against the proceedings and the resultant decision of the Board of Revenue, U. P., dated 29th July, 1964 (Annexure E to the writ petition and against its order dated 2nd August, 1964 (Annexure D to the writ petition) directing the Collector of Aligarh to take necessary action in pursuance of the order of the Board dated 29th July, 1964. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner's brothers, viz., Rajendra Kumar, Jagdish Kumar and Shanti Kumar, who were all minors instituted a declaratory suit through their mother Smt. Katori Devi against their father Shri Kanhaiya Lal and the petitioner claiming a declaration of their share in the joint family estate. This suit, being civil suit no. 62 of 1948, was filed in the court of the Civil judge at Aligarh. It is stated in the writ petition that subsequent to the filing of the suit on 25th of March, 1947, the parties to the suit orally partitioned the joint family property. The matter in controversy in the suit was adjusted between the parties and they filed a compromise application in the court and prayed that the suit be decreed in terms of the compromise and it be made a part of the decree. A true copy of the decree which includes the compromise application is Annexure A to the writ petition. Subsequent to the passing of the decree the parties thereto on the basis of the oral partition drew up a memorandum on stamp paper of Rs. 5/-. This memorandum is Annexure B to the writ petition. This memorandum was filed in the Income Tax Office, Aligarh, in connection with the assessment proceedings of MSS Kanhaiya Lal Prathmavatar (which was a joint family firm and subsequently changed into a partnership firm) showing to the income tax authorities that there was an oral partition of the joint family estate. The Income Tax Officer, it is alleged in the writ petition, accepted the oral partition. 3. This file of the Income Tax Officer, in the routine duty of Special Stamp Officer of the U. P. Government was inspected by him and this memorandum dated 7th March, 1948 was noticed by him. In the opinion of the Special Stamp Officer it was insufficiently stamped. 3. This file of the Income Tax Officer, in the routine duty of Special Stamp Officer of the U. P. Government was inspected by him and this memorandum dated 7th March, 1948 was noticed by him. In the opinion of the Special Stamp Officer it was insufficiently stamped. He impounded the same and made a report to the Collector, Aligarh, and directed that his report along with the document be sent to the Collector. The Collector in turn sent the report of the Special Stamp Officer and the document to the Board of Revenue, U. P., respondent no. 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner is said to have received a notice dated 17th July, 1964, a copy of which is Annexure C to the writ petition, from the Board of Revenue. The petitioner has been informed by the Board of Revenue that the Collector of Aligarh has made a reference under Sec 56 (2) of the Stamp Act in respect of a document dated 7th March, 1948, executed by Shri Kanhaiya Lal and the petitioner and 28th of July, 1964, was fixed by the Board for hearing of the matter and determining the stamp duty chargeable on the said document. It should be noted at the place that Kanhaiya Lal and Rajendra Kumar had died long before the date of this hearing. in respect of the document the Board came to the conclusion that the document filed before the Income Tax Officer was properly stamped. In these proceedings the Special Stamp Officer made a report about the final decree as well passed by the Civil Court in terms of the compromise. This compromise decree was brought to the notice of the Board on the elate of hearing. The petitioner was informed that the decree passed in the suit was an instrument of partition and the stamp duty was payable on it which had not been paid. According to the opinion of the Board of Revenue the decree was unstamped and should have been stamped as an instrument of partition. The petitioner raised various grounds before the Board in connection with the decree but the Board of Revenue by its order dated 29th July, 1964 (the impugned order) directed the Collector Aligarh to impound the decree and to levy a proper stamp duty on it after eliminating the largest share of Rs. 826441- i.e. the share of the petitioner. The petitioner raised various grounds before the Board in connection with the decree but the Board of Revenue by its order dated 29th July, 1964 (the impugned order) directed the Collector Aligarh to impound the decree and to levy a proper stamp duty on it after eliminating the largest share of Rs. 826441- i.e. the share of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Board the total amount on which the stamp duty was leviable was Rs. 2,10,076-0-2 and under Article 45 of the Stamp Act Board worked out the stamp duty at Rs. 1978-2-0. It has further been observed by the Board in that order that the civil court which passed the decree did not notice the insufficiency of the stamp and remarked that the civil court did not read its own order and the compromise petition together. The Board further observed that without the final decree by the civil court the compromise petition would not have been an effective instrument of partition. The Board held that in view of the clear provisions of Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act where final order is passed and a partition is effected as a result of the order of the civil court the document would be an instrument of partition. It further went on to hold that in view of the lack of notice on the part of the civil court it was not a fit case in which penalty should be levied and directed that the deficiency of stamp duty should be made good without penalty. 4. Various grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition but in view of my finding given below I do not think to consider all those grounds. In my opinion the Board was not justified in assessing the stamp duty and issue the direction to the Collector, Aligarh, for realisation of the amount from the petitioner. I do not wish to express any opinion whether the document (the final decree containing the compromise petition) is an instrument of partition or not. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is an instrument of partition in my opinion, the Board's order dated 29th July, 1964, Annexure E to the writ petition, is without jurisdiction and the amount cannot be realised from the petitioner. The consequential order Annexure D to the writ petition is also without jurisdiction. . Assuming for the sake of argument that it is an instrument of partition in my opinion, the Board's order dated 29th July, 1964, Annexure E to the writ petition, is without jurisdiction and the amount cannot be realised from the petitioner. The consequential order Annexure D to the writ petition is also without jurisdiction. . 5. Section 2 (15) of the Stamp Act defines the instrument of partition. It means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severality and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by ally civil Court. Section 29 of the Stamp Act provides that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary the expenses of providing proper stamp duty shall be borne in the case of an instrument of partition by parties thereto in proportion to their respective shares in the whole property partitioned or when the partition is made in execution of an order by a civil court in such proportion as the court may direct. In the instant case it is an admitted fact that the civil court made no direction as required under Section 29 (g) of the Stamp Act. The purported instrument of partition was executed by the civil court without clue compliance of Section 29 of the Indian Stamp Act. The final decree, therefore, incorporating the terms of the compromise even if it be treated as a instrument of partition is a document of no use to the par- ties thereto or to any other person. Under Section 35 such an instrument if it is chargeable with duty will not be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any, person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence nor shall it be acted upon unless it is duly stamped. It is, therefore, left for the determination of such a person who has by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence. Whether the instrument is or is not an instrument of partition could not have been decided in these proceedings. The document in question was not tendered before the Board as an evidence nor the Board in the proceedings before it was authorised by law to receive the document as evidence. Whether the instrument is or is not an instrument of partition could not have been decided in these proceedings. The document in question was not tendered before the Board as an evidence nor the Board in the proceedings before it was authorised by law to receive the document as evidence. The Board of Revenue in my opinion, in the circumstances of the case had no jurisdiction to hold that the civil court passed the decree without noticing the insufficiency of the Stamp. When the Board itself held in its order dated 29th July, 1964, that without the final decree by the civil court the compromise petition would not be an effective instrument of partition the Board was in error in assuming the jurisdiction of the civil court under Section 29 of the Indian Stamp Act. Jurisdiction under Section 29(g) could only have been exercised in a case of this nature by the civil court. The Board of Revenue in my opinion was in error in giving the direction to the Collector. The Board was also in error in holding the instrument to be an instrument of partition in the proceedings before it. The Board also erred in holding that there was lack of exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil court. In my opinion in the absence of any direction by the civil court the petitioner is not liable to make good the alleged deficiency of stamp duty without penalty. 6. In this view of the matter I quash the order dated 29-7-1964 (Annexure E to the writ petition) so far as it relates to the decree passed by the civil court in suit no. 62 of 1946 and also the direction (Annexure D to the writ petition) directing the Collector of Aligarh to take action in pursuance of the order dated 29th July 1964. The writ petition is allowed, but I make no order as to costs.