Judgment : This revision petition has been filed by the respondents 5 and 6 in Guardian and Wards O.P.No.8 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District, being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court dated 12.6.2008, admitting the memorandum of past partition, without considering the objection raised by the revision petitioners that the memorandum of past partition is liable to stamp duty and penalty and it is compulsory registrable document under the amended Act of 1986. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per amended clause 15 of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, the document is required to be stamped and as it is not duly stamped, the Court has to collect the stamp duty and penalty and as the document is not a registered one, it cannot be received and marked in evidence and it is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that the document clearly indicates past partition between the parties and by virtue of the amendment Act of 1986, which came into force on 16.8.1986, the document must be deemed to be a deed of past partition. Therefore, it requires necessary stamp duty and penalty and registration and as the document is written on insufficient stamped paper, it cannot be treated as valid document to be received in evidence. He further contended that the document cannot be received even for collateral purpose also. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that unless and until Section 2(14) is amended, the amendment to Section 15 will have no effect. Therefore, the lower Court was right in holding that mere acknowledgement of past oral transaction including past partition, is not an instrument of past partition requiring any stamp duty, much less registration. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners in support of his contention relief on a judgment of this Court in Rachakonda Ramakoteswara Rao and others v. Manohar Fuel Centre, nereducherla, Khammam and another ( 2003 (2) ALD 638 ), wherein this Court considered the scope of Section 35 of the Stamp Act and Section 49 of the Registration Act, and held that the bar engrafted under Section 35 of the Stamp Act is an absolute bar and, therefore, the document cannot be used for any purpose, unlike the bar contained in Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act. Under the proviso incorporated under Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document can be looked into even if it is not registered, for collateral purpose or other purpose specified inter alia in the provisio. The amended definition of Section 2(15) read as follows:- “ “Instrument of Partition”:-“Instrument of partition” means 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 partition passed by any revenue authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition Added by A.P.(Amendment) Act 17 of 1986 (w.e.f. 16-8-1986) [and a memorandum regarding past partition;]” As per the amended provision the memorandum of past partition is also included in the definition of instrument of partition. It is not in dispute that the instrument of partition is compulsorily registrable. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the memorandum of past partition is also included in the definition of instrument of partition, it has to be registered as required under law. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the memorandum of past partition need not be registered and he relied on some judgments in support of his contention. In Euravaram leenakara Reddy and another v. E. Raghunatha Reddy and others 1997 (2) An.W.R.698 this Court considered the scope of definition of instrument of partition and held that when once a document is only a memorandum of past partition and when no present interest is conveyed under that document and when actually partition is not effected thereby, such document is neither liable for stamp duty nor requires registration. The learned Judge also considered the amended definition of partition and observed that the disputed document is dated 11.9.1973 and the amendment to the Act came into force in the year 1986. The learned Judge observed that the amendment will not have any retrospective affect, therefore, the amended definition is not applicable to the document executed on 11.9.1973. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laydown by this Court, since the disputed document is of 1973, the Court rightly came to a conclusion that the amended definition is not applicable to the said document. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laydown by this Court, since the disputed document is of 1973, the Court rightly came to a conclusion that the amended definition is not applicable to the said document. In Bakhtawar Singh v. Gurdev Singh and Another (1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 370 the Supreme Court observed that the memorandum recording past oral partition of Joint Hindu family property as a family settlement, is not required to be registered. Hence, such a document evidencing the apportionment of a shop in dispute to the appellant, who had filed ejection application on the ground of non-payment of rent, should not have been ignored by the authority concerned merely on account of non-registration. The issue whether the memorandum evidencing partition under a family settlement requires registration or not is kept open. Therefore, this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. This document was executed on 6.3.1997 subsequent to the amendment to clause 15 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, it is required to be compulsorily registered. The lower Court ought to have examined that the instrument of partition includes memorandum of past partition and ought to have concluded that the document requires stamp duty and penalty. Therefore, the document should have been impounded by way of collection of stamp duty and penalty. Regarding the question of registration, whether the document is required to be registered when it is sought to be marked for collateral purpose whether the document is being marked for collateral purpose or to prove the partition is a question of fact to be decided by the Court after hearing the parties. In the light of the above circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the lower Court dated 12.6.2008 is set aside. The lower Court is directed to once again examine the document in the light of the amended definition under Section 2 Clause 15 and pass an order directing the party to pay stamp duty and penalty. The lower Court is also directed to examine whether the marking of the document is for collateral purpose or not. The lower Court is directed to once again examine the document in the light of the amended definition under Section 2 Clause 15 and pass an order directing the party to pay stamp duty and penalty. The lower Court is also directed to examine whether the marking of the document is for collateral purpose or not. If it is on the question of division of the property, the document cannot be marked for want of registration and if it is for any other purpose, the Court may pass appropriate orders, after giving opportunity to both the parties, I am of the view that the definition under Section 2 Clause 14 is not applicable in the present case though the learned counsel for the respondents laid stress that unless 2 (14) is amended, it cannot be treated as instrument of partition. No order as to costs.