( 1 ) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 12-4-2005. The respondents were served, but none represents the respondents. ( 2 ) SRI Naguru Nagaraju, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would submit that inasmuch as the revision petitioner is relying on the documents in question for collateral purpose no stamp duty and penalty need be paid on the said documents. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on the decision of the Division bench of this Court in A. Kishore @ kantha Rao v. G. Srinivasulu, 2004 (3) ald 817 (DB ). ( 3 ) THE document in question is a partition deed showing the allotment of shares. The revision petitioner intended to place reliance on that document for collateral purpose and this aspect need not be gone into in detail in the present CRP. Even assuming for a moment that the revision petitioner intends to rely upon the document in question for collateral purpose, whether the same is liable for the payment of stamp duty and penalty or not. ( 4 ) SECTION 35 of the Indian Stamp act reads as hereunder: 35. Even assuming for a moment that the revision petitioner intends to rely upon the document in question for collateral purpose, whether the same is liable for the payment of stamp duty and penalty or not. ( 4 ) SECTION 35 of the Indian Stamp act reads as hereunder: 35. Instruments; not duly stamped inadmissible in evidence, etc:no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped: provided that (a) any such instrument not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of (twenty paise or a mortgage of crop (Article 36 (a) of Schedule I-A) chargeable under ckuse (aa) or (bb) of section 3 with a duty of forty paise) or a bill or exchange or promissory note, shall subject to all just exceptions, be admitted in evidence on payment of the duty with which the same is chargeable, or, in the case of an instrument insufficiently stamped, of the amount it required to make up such duty, together with a penalty of (fifteen rupees), or, when ten times the amount of the proper duty or deficient portion thereof exceeds (fifteen rupees) of a sum equal to ten times such duty or portion; (b) Where any person from whom a stamped receipt could have been demanded, has given an unstamped receipt and such receipt, if stamped would be admissible in evidence against him, then such receipt shall be admitted in evidence against him on payment of a penalty of (three rupees) by the person tendering it; (c) Where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped; (d) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in evidence in any proceeding in a criminal Court, other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898; (e) Nothing herein contained shall prevent the admission of any instrument in any Court when such instrument has been executed by or on behalf of the government, or where it bears the certificate of the Collector as provided by Section 32 of any other provision of this Act. ( 5 ) NO doubt, the learned Counsel had drawn the attention of this Court to section 49 of the Indian Registration Act and also relied upon the decision of the division Bench in A. Kishore @ Kantha rao (supra ). In the said decision the division Bench held "even an unregistered sale deed can be taken into consideration in terms of proviso to Section 49 for the purpose of establishing possession and nature of possession. The terms of the lease would be primary purpose and the possession and nature of possession would be the collateral purpose". That is not the question, which is involved in the present matter. The question is when a document that is liable for stamp duty and penalty if received in evidence even for collateral purpose, whether it requires the payment of stamp duty and penalty or not. A learned Judge of this Court in Bolleddula lakshmi Devi v. Bolleddula Papanna, 2003 (3) ALD 50 = 2003 (3) ALT 513 , while dealing with similar question in relation to Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and Section 49 of the Indian Registration act 1908 held that where an unregistered partition deed was insufficiently stamped and inadmissible it is to be used for collateral purpose under proviso to Section 49 of registration Act only on payment of the stamp duty and penalty. ( 6 ) I do not see any reason to take a different view in the matter. Hence, the reasons recorded by the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah cannot be found fault with in any way. ( 7 ) THE CRP is devoid of merit and accordingly the same shall stand dismissed. No costs.