ORDER : M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J. 1. In this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the plaintiffs, the challenge is to the order, dated 4.1.2019, of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, whereby the learned Judge, while upholding the objection of the defendants, held that the document, dated 8.12.1956, is a partition deed and hence, the same is liable to be charged with stamp duty and penalty and that it cannot be admitted in evidence, even for collateral purposes, unless stamp duty and penalty are paid and collected. 2. I have heard the submissions of Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-plaintiffs ('plaintiffs', for brevity) and, of Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendants ('defendants', for brevity). I have perused the material record. 3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:-'The plaintiffs instituted the suit against the defendants for a perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land with Mango garden of an extent of Acs. 6.34 cents in Thammayyapeta Bendapudi Gram Panchayat, Thondangi Mandal, East Godavari District morefully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The defendants, having filed a written statement, are contesting the suit. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs tendered, for being marked as an exhibit, a document, dated 8.12.1956, styled as 'Sthirasti pampakamula jabitha' (immovable property partition list). When the said document is tendered through PW 1 for being marked as an exhibit, learned Counsel for the defendants objected for making the same on the ground that the said document is not stamped and registered though it is required to be stamped and registered and that it is inadmissible in evidence. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the contents of the said document reflect that the partition had taken place some time back and that the document is only a record of past transaction and that it is only a memorandum of past partition or a partition list evidencing past partition and, therefore, the document does not require to be charged with any stamp duty and is not a compulsorily registerable document. The trial Court, having referred to the contents of the document as well as the precedents cited before it upheld the objection of the defendants and recorded a finding that the document in question is a deed of partition and is liable to be charged with required stamp duty and that unless the stamp duty and penalty are paid, it cannot be admitted in evidence even for collateral purpose. Aggrieved thereof, the plaintiffs preferred this revision.' 4. At the hearing, learned Counsel for both the sides fairly stated that as per the ratio in the decision in Ram Rattan (dead) by LRs. v. Bajrang Lal and others, (1978) 3 SCC 236 , the trial Court before which the objection is taken about admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. 5. It is also pertinent to note the ratio in the decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat and another, 2001 (1) ALD (Crl.) 548 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 1158 , wherein the Supreme Court has made it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. Therefore, the trial Court need not be found fault for judicially determining the objection that was taken about the admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly stamped, as the trial Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. 6. Now, the short question is as to whether the document in question is a deed of partition chargeable with duty or whether it is a memorandum of partition or a partition list evidencing a transaction of past partition? 7. There is no dispute with the proposition that the nature/character and the description/nomenclature/classification and also the stamp duty payable, if any, on the document have to be determined with reference to the recitals therein and the substance of the transaction embodied in the instrument and not with reference to the title, caption or name given to the instrument. 7. There is no dispute with the proposition that the nature/character and the description/nomenclature/classification and also the stamp duty payable, if any, on the document have to be determined with reference to the recitals therein and the substance of the transaction embodied in the instrument and not with reference to the title, caption or name given to the instrument. Further, for classification of instruments, that is, to determine whether an instrument comes within a particular description in an article to the schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, the instrument should be read and construed as a whole. The name or the caption given to the document is not determinative and the nature or character or the substance of the transaction contained in the document is only the determinative factor. Hence, having regard to the substance of the transaction contained in the deed, in question, its nature and character have to be first ascertained; and, it is to be further determined as to whether it is required to be stamped or not. 8. In the light of the said settled legal position, I have carefully gone through the contents of the document in question. The introductory part recites that K. Papa Rao, K. Rama Swamy and K. Ganga Rao jointly executed the document by styling it as 'Sthirasti pampakamula jabitha' (immovable property partition list). As already noted, the nomenclature or the name given by the parties to the document is not the determining factor. The relevant recitals in Telugu read as under: (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced.) The purport of the above recitals may be stated as follows:-The father of the executants 1 and 2 and the grand father of K. Ganga Rao are brothers. The said Gangaiah's adopted son, Ganga Rao, and the father of Ramaswamy and Papa Rao by name Papaiah used to enjoy the immovable properties jointly with equal rights. The said K. Ganga Rao and Papaiah died. Thereafter, the properties mentioned in the document devolved in two shares, that is one share upon K. Ganga Rao and the remaining share upon Papa Rao & Ramaswamy together. They did joint cultivations upto 1955 and later divided the properties into two shares temporarily. The said K. Ganga Rao and Papaiah died. Thereafter, the properties mentioned in the document devolved in two shares, that is one share upon K. Ganga Rao and the remaining share upon Papa Rao & Ramaswamy together. They did joint cultivations upto 1955 and later divided the properties into two shares temporarily. However, for affecting permanent repairs and for permanent partition, to avoid claims against one another, the properties were partitioned into two shares equally as share 'A' and share 'B' and each sharer has taken possession of his respective share with absolute rights to enjoy, gift and sell the respective shares from the date of execution of the document. The two sharers of A and B shares shall not raise dispute that the shares are unequal and are not according to good and bad qualities. And, each sharer shall pay tax separately on the respective allotted share, to the Government without reference to the other sharer. 9. The above and other recitals in the document, without doubt, make it manifest that under the very document the immovable properties are permanently partitioned once and for all into two shares (A and B) and one share each is allotted to the eligible sharer declaring that each sharer shall enjoy, the allotted share with absolute rights including the rights to enjoy, gift, sell, etcetera by paying taxes to the Government on the allotted share independently. It is also recited, as already noted, that the parties to the document shall not raise dispute that the shares are unequal and/or are not in accordance with good and bad qualities at any time in future. 10. Having thus considered the transaction embodied in the documents, this Court finds itself in agreement with the finding of the Court below that the document in question is a deed of partition and not a memorandum of partition or a list of partition recording past partition and that, therefore, the document in question is required to be charged with duty and that as it is not charged with any duty it is inadmissible in evidence until required stamp duty and penalty are paid as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act. 11. On the above analysis, this Court holds that the contentions that the deed in question is only a record of past partition cannot be countenanced. 12. 11. On the above analysis, this Court holds that the contentions that the deed in question is only a record of past partition cannot be countenanced. 12. Dealing with the next aspect as to whether the said document can be permitted to be exhibited for collateral purpose, it is to be noted that in the decision in the case of Avinash Kumar Chauhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra, 2009 (1) ALD 109 (SC) : 2009 (1) LS 35 (SC), the Supreme Court referred to the following ratio in the decision in the case of T. Bhaskar Rao v. T. Gabriel and others, AIR 1981 AP 175 : "It is now well-settled that there is no prohibition under Section 49 of the Registration Act, to receive an unregistered document in evidence for collateral purpose. But the document so tendered should be duly stamped or should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the Stamp Act, if not stamped, as a document cannot be received in evidence even for collateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under Section 35 of the Stamp Act." 13. In view of the said legal position, it follows that the document cannot be admitted even for collateral purpose unless the required stamp duty and penalty collectable on the instrument are paid and collected. 14. For all the afore-stated reasons, this Court finds that the impugned order brooks no interference. 15. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.