M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up before this court for orders, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, is disposed of finally. ( 2 ) THE short question involved in this Petition is whether the document sought to be produced by the plaintiff, a palupatti kararu, is required to be on a stamped paper or duly stamped if it attracts description of an instrument of partition as defined under Section 2 (k) (iii) of the Karnataka Stamp Act and there, fore liable to pay duty and penalty before it is admitted in evidence though it is not required to be registered under the Registration Act. ( 3 ) THE true copy of the instrument in question is given by the Counsel for respondent The instrument is dated 20th november, 1976. It purports to be an agreement to partition the joint family properties between the two sons of one subbaraya, since deceased, in the presence of the panchayatdars. The crucial recitals freely translated into English are as follows :- we have for our share, obtained the properties noted below, as decided by the panchayatdars. We shall take possession of our respective properties before the end of December, 1s67. In march, 1967 a partition deed shall be got executed and duly registered in accordance with the partition made under this instrument. " thereafter the list of properties Allotted to each one of the brothers signed by the brothers as well as the witnesses follows. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFF contended that it was only being sought to be put in evidence to prove the severance of status, that is to fix the date on which the joint status stood severred. In itself, it is not the deed of partition as there is a registered deed of partition executed and registered in the year 1968. The defendant contended the opposite. The Munsiff rightly came to the conclusion that the document in question was admissible in evidence though not registered but only on payment of duty and penalty. It is the latter part of the order with which the plaintiff- petitioner is aggrieved. The defendant contended the opposite. The Munsiff rightly came to the conclusion that the document in question was admissible in evidence though not registered but only on payment of duty and penalty. It is the latter part of the order with which the plaintiff- petitioner is aggrieved. ( 5 ) IN this Court what has been contended is that once the Court came to the conclusion, it was admissible in evidence for collateral purpose of only proving the severance of status and not evidence the partition, the Court was not correct in asking the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty as if the document was not required to be stamped. Undoubtedly, under the Karnataka Stamp Act an instrument of partition is required to be duly stamped according to the provisions contained there, i. e. , on the market value of the largest of the shares. But, that has already been done in the deed of partition executed in the year 1968 and duly registered in respect of the same properties pursuant to what was agreed in the instrument in question. Therefore, the learned Munsiff committed an error in coming to the conclusion that there Can be two partition deeds in respect of the same properties by holding the instrument in question to be also a deed of partition. If parties have paid duty on the instrument of partition of 1968, that will be the document which will be effective being a registered document and the earlier palupatti has no other value except as evidence of severance of Joint status, that is, the point of time to be reckoned for purpose of severance of status. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter, Revision Petition is allowed. Order of the munsiff, to the extent petitioner is aggrieved, is set aside and he is not required to pay duty and penalty on the document. In other aspects the order of the learned civil Judge stands. Revision Petition Allowed. --- *** --- .