ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the orders passed in the suit docket in O.S. No. 195 of 2010 dated 26.11.2015 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole wherein and whereby the learned trial Judge overruled the objection raised by the learned counsel for plaintiff regarding marking of document dated 05.08.2015. 2. The Revision Petitioner filed suit against the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share of plaint schedule properties consisting of item Nos. 1 to 12. During the course of trial of the suit, the respondents/defendants intended to mark document dated 05.08.2015 said to be partition list as an exhibit in their evidence. For which, learned counsel representing for the petitioner/plaintiff before the trial Court objected for the same. Then after hearing both sides, learned trial Judge passed orders, which reads as under: “the learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposed for marking the first document contending that the same being an unregistered partition list is inadmissible in evidence and it requires stamp duty penalty. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision in Kapu Anasuyamma vs. V.K. Malla Reddy and Others, 2012 (3) ALD 388 regarding inadmissibility of unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed in evidence. Upon perusal, the first document does not bare any nomenclature, perusal of its contents shows that it was executed in acknowledgement of the earlier partition effected between the parties. Itself it is only a memorandum of past partition, but not a partition deed. Hence, registration is not required unless by virtue of such document a right is created for the first time in the property worth more than Rs. 100/-. Hence, there is no need to collect stamp duty penalty on the partition list dated 24.06.1986. The observation of this Court in this regard is forfeited by the decision of our Honourable High Court in Ms. Kavitha Goud by GPA vs. N. Sudarshan Reddy, AIR 2004 A.P. 326 (DB). Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff regarding marking the partition list is unsustainable. Both parties are instructed to proceed with further trial.” 3. Kavitha Goud by GPA vs. N. Sudarshan Reddy, AIR 2004 A.P. 326 (DB). Thus, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff regarding marking the partition list is unsustainable. Both parties are instructed to proceed with further trial.” 3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned trial Judge, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred present Revision Petition stating that order of the trial Court in jumping into the conclusion that the partition list dated 24.06.1986 is memorandum of partition does not require stamp duty and registration is contrary to law. He submits that Respondent No. 3 filed an unregistered partition deed dated 24.06.1986 with a petition to condone the delay in filing the document which respondent No. 3 intended to mark in his evidence for establishing the partition among the petitioner and respondents but not for collateral purpose. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that trial Court erred in misinterpreting the partition deed dated 24.06.1986 as partition list and trial Court ought to have rejected the admission of the document into evidence as it is not registered and not properly stamped as required under Section 17 of Registration Act. He prays to allow the revision petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner Mr.K.Harinarayana. He would submit that the document dated 24.06.1986 is a partition deed which created right in immovable property as it also contains the recitals that father shall enjoy A-schedule property alloted to him with a limited rights which amounts to creating future rights in favour of others which requires registration under Section 17 of Indian Registration Act. He would further submit that the document is also contains different schedules of properties with boundaries except recital that oral partition already taken place, the recitals of document clearly shows that it is a partition deed requires registration which also insufficiently stamped. He prays to allow the revision petition and reject the admission of document dated 24.06.1986 by the trial Court. He relied on following president law: (1) Kapu Anasuyamma vs. K. Malla Reddy and Others, 2012 (3) ALD 388 . Wherein it is held that unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of bar under Section 35 of Stamp Act. (2) Korrothu Appalanaidu vs. Karrothu Narayana, 2002 (6) ALD 27. Wherein it is held that unregistered and insufficiently stamped partition deed cannot be admitted into evidence for any purpose including for collateral purpose in the face of bar under Section 35 of Stamp Act. (2) Korrothu Appalanaidu vs. Karrothu Narayana, 2002 (6) ALD 27. Wherein it is held that when document under which both the brothers divided the property, which were hitherto being held jointly and two separate lists prepared for each brother which document is a partition deed but not partition list. It is not admissible in evidence in the absence of stamp duty and registration. It would be beneficial to extract paras 4 and 5 of Judgment, which reads as under: 4. When a document is presented before the Court and objection is being taken by the other side that it being a partition deed it cannot be marked in the absence of proper stamp duty and registration, the Court must necessarily keep in mind the definition of instrument of partition as defined in clause (15) of Section 2 of the Act as noticed hereinabove. If a document merely records a past transaction whereby the parties only reduced to writing such past transaction under which the property had already been divided in severalty the same cannot be a partition deed. This is because, clause (15) of Section 2 of the Act is couched in present tense and not in past tense. It has nothing to do with a division of property in the past. It only deals with division of property in praesenti. 5. Applying the test to the document in question the following position may be noticed: (i) till 09.02.1972 the petitioner and respondent were co-owners of the property; (ii) the petitioner and respondent decided to live separately with effect from 09.02.1972; (iii) they agreed to divide the property between them by showing the property which fell to respective shares of each one of them separately and (iv) with the intention to live separately and to divide the property from 09.02.1972 they agreed to execute the document. Viewed from these aspects it is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a partition list though the document uses the word “jabitha” which means “list” in Telugu. Viewed from these aspects it is not possible to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a partition list though the document uses the word “jabitha” which means “list” in Telugu. Indeed it is not a partition list but it evidences the volition of the petitioner and respondent to divide the property and in furtherance of such decision to divide, the document gives two separate lists of property representing respective shares after such division. The trial Court must be held to have arrived at a correct decision. In the result, the revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (3) Khaja Habeebuddin vs. Md. Ibrahim and Others, 2004 (3) ALT 51 (SB). Wherein it is held that the document provides for the extent of shares of various persons and intends to bring about a partition such a document is a partition deed if it is not registered it cannot be received in evidence to establish the factum of partition but it can be received in evidence for the collateral purpose of severance of status and nothing more. (4) Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another vs. Buddha Jagadeeswararao and Others in Civil Appeal No. 8441 of 2015 order dated 08.10.2015 Supreme Court. Wherein it is held that in a suit for partition an unregistered document cannot be received which can be relied upon for collateral purpose that is severance of title, nature of possession, if the same is impounded. Paras 17 and 18 if Judgment, which reads as under: 17. It is well settled that the nomenclature given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. A thorough reading of both exhibits B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registerable document and if the same is not registered, becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. A thorough reading of both exhibits B-21 and B-22 makes it very clear that there is relinquishment of right in respect of immovable property through a document which is compulsorily registerable document and if the same is not registered, becomes an inadmissible document as envisaged under Section 49 of the Registration Act. Hence, Exhibits B-21 and B-22 are the documents which squarely fall within the ambit of Section 17 (i) (b) of the Registration Act and hence are compulsorily registerable documents and the same are inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of proving the factum of partition between the parties. We are of the considered opinion that Exhibit B-21 and B-22 are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition. 18. Then the next question that falls for consideration is whether these can be used for any collateral purpose. The larger Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chinnappa Reddy Gari Muthyala Reddy vs. Chinnappa Reddy Gari Venkat Reddy, AIR 1969 A.P. 242, has held that the whole process of partition contemplates three phases i.e. severancy of status, division of joint property by metes and bounds and nature of possession of various shares. In a suit for partition, an unregistered document can be relied upon for collateral purpose i.e. severancy of title, nature of possession of various shares but not for the primary purpose i.e. division of joint properties by metes and bounds. An unstampted instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded. Hence, if the appellants/defendants want to mark these documents for collateral purpose it is open for them to pay the stamp duty together with penalty and get the document impounded and the Trial Court is at liberty to mark Exhibits B-21 and B-22 for collateral purpose subject to proof and relevance. 5. Lakkoji Mohana Rao vs. Lakkoji Viswanadham and Others, AIR 2012 A.P. 110 . Wherein it is held that unregistered partition deed is not admissible in evidence for any purpose as bar engrafted under Section 35 is an absolute bar and therefore document cannot be admitted even for collateral purpose. 6. Podurin Satyavathi vs. District Registrar and Another, AIR 2008 A.P. 69 . Wherein it is held that unregistered partition deed is not admissible in evidence for any purpose as bar engrafted under Section 35 is an absolute bar and therefore document cannot be admitted even for collateral purpose. 6. Podurin Satyavathi vs. District Registrar and Another, AIR 2008 A.P. 69 . Wherein it is explained an instrument of partition and settlement and held that document dated 16.10.2006 is a partition deed and directed to levy the stamp duty on the document only at one percent not six percent. 5. Now the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is whether orders under challenged are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India? 6. Before going to the merits of the Court it would be beneficial to extract Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which reads as under: “Section 2 (15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Instrument of Partition: “Instrument of Partition” means any instrument whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severally and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed by any revenue authority or any Civil Court and an award by an arbitrator directing a partition and (memorandum regarding past partition).” The said sentence in the definition under Section 2 (15) added by Andhra Pradesh (Amendment) Act, 17 of 1986 (with effect from 16.08.1986). “Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 Documents of which registration is compulsory: The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely: (a) Instruments of gift of immovable property. (b) Other non testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of the one hundred rupees and upwards, in or to immovable property.” 7. (b) Other non testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of the one hundred rupees and upwards, in or to immovable property.” 7. On perusal of above referred provision which makes it clear that if the document itself creates an interest in immovable property the effect that it contemplates creates the declaration, assign or limit or extinguish wherein present or in future any right or interest in immovable property value of which more Rs.100/- shall be compulsorily registerable. 8. Now it would also beneficial to extract English translated copy of document dated 24.06.1986 which filed by revision petitioner which reads as under: “FAMILY PARTITION LIST Family Partition List executed by and among: 1. Sriramulu S/o Pillutla Subrahmanyam, Sons of the said Sriramulu namely 2. Veera Raghavaiah, 3. Subrahmanya Sarma, 4. Purushotham Sarma, wife of the said Sriramulu namely 5. Anasuyamma, all resident of Valluru Village, Ongole Taluq, Prakasam District. No. 2, 3 and 4 are sons and No. 5 among us is wife to No. 1 among us. We have been jointly enjoying entire properties acquired by our ancestors and due to disputes arose between us the affairs of the joint family are not properly maintained, as a result loss occurred to our joint family. We thought that instead of keeping the property jointly it is better to partition our property and enjoy separately, as such we have partitioned our joint family properties and we have been separately enjoying our respective shares of properties for the past 4 years. But as we have not executed any document while making partition at that time today we have executed this Partition List as per the said partition. According to the said oral partition Schedule ‘A’ Property is allotted to No. 1 among us namely Sriramulu, Schedule ‘B’ Property is allotted to No. 2 among us namely Veera Raghavaiah, Schedule ‘C’ Property is allotted to No. 3 among us namely Subrahmanya Sarma, and Schedule ‘D’ Property is allotted to No. 4 among us namely Purushotham Sarma and Schedule ‘E’ Property is allotted to No. 5 among us namely Anasuyamma, accordingly each of us have been taken over the possession of our respective shares of properties and enjoying the same by paying relevant taxes, cess, etc. No. 1 among us namely Sirramulu shall enjoy the Schedule ‘A’ Property allotted to him and he shall enjoy the possession of the same without absolute rights avoiding him not to alienate the property to others. The remaining shareholders shall enjoy their respective shares of properties with absolute rights. In future no one among us has right to raise any disputes by saying about the inequalities about the extent, merits and demerits of the property. So far we got good blood relations and we have not disputes among us. We have no debts to get from others and to give to others. SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY: Details of the Share of Property allotted to Pillutla Sriramulu among us: (1) Boundaries of the land in an extent of Ac. 2-50 cents situated at Survey No. 538-1, Vallur Village, joined in Valluru Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area: East: Damacharla Anjaneyulu and others. South: Schedule ‘E’ Property. West: Damacherla Seshaiah and others. North: Sagar canal to some extent and Damacherla Seshaiah to some extent. (2) An extent of Ac. 0-25 cents of land in the above said village Sy. No. 348-1B, bounded by: East: Land of Pillutla Venkata Subrahmanya Prasad. South: Land of Partitala Venkaiah. West: Rail road. North: Land of Molaklapally Venkata Rathaiah. An extent of Ac. 2-75 cents in the above said Item No. 1 and 2. SCHEDULE ‘B’ PROPERTY: Details of the Share of Property allotted to Pillutla Veera Raghavaiah among us: (1) Boundaries of dry land in an extent of Ac. 1-60 cents situated at Survey No. 471/10, Vallur Village, joined in Valluru Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area: East: Jammulapalem Path (Donka). South: Chavala Narsimha. West: Yelaka Veeraswamy and Challa Sambaiah. North: Talari Venkaiah and others. (2) An extent of Ac. 0-50 cents of land in the above said village Sy. No. 342-6B bounded by: East: Land of Pillutla Purushotham Sarma. South: Land f Pillutla Kodandapani and Upputholli Ramarao. West: Rail road. North: Land of Pillutla Kameswari and others. (3) An extent of Ac. 2-95 cents of land situated at Sy. No. 260 of Vasepallipadu village, joined in Vasepallipadu Grama Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area, bounded by: East: Sagar Canal. South: Land of Thokuri Ramaiah and Thokuri Venkateswarlu. West: Land of Sulavari Subbaraidu. North: Land of Pillutla Venkata Subrahmanya Vara Prasad. An extent of Ac. 2-95 cents lying in the above said boundaries. 2-95 cents of land situated at Sy. No. 260 of Vasepallipadu village, joined in Vasepallipadu Grama Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area, bounded by: East: Sagar Canal. South: Land of Thokuri Ramaiah and Thokuri Venkateswarlu. West: Land of Sulavari Subbaraidu. North: Land of Pillutla Venkata Subrahmanya Vara Prasad. An extent of Ac. 2-95 cents lying in the above said boundaries. A total extent of Ac. 6-99 cents of land in two villages. SCHEDULE ‘C’ PROPERTY: Details of the Share of Property allotted to Pillutla Subrahmanya Sarma among us: (1) Boundaries of dry land in an extent of Ac. 2-00 cents situated at Survey No. 461/1, Vallur Village, joined in Valluru Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area: East: Burra Thakkelapati Venkataiah. South: Yelaka Gangaia and Yelaka Sriramulu. West: Path (Donka). North: Chivukula Koteswara Sarma. (2) An extent of Ac. 0-50 cents of land in the above said Valluru vilage Sy. No. 400-5 bounded by: East: Land of Valluri Raghavulu. South: Land of Kedari Ranga Rao and Kedari Subbaiah. West: Land of Valluri Raghavaulu. North: Nugari Venkateswarlu to some extent and Tanguturi Kotaiah to some extent. (3) An extent of Ac. 0-03 cents of land situated in Sy. No. 400-1 (Complete) of the said Village village. (4) An extent of Ac. 2-25 cents of dry land towards East situated in Sy. No. 260 of Vasepallipadu village, joined in Vasepallipadu Grama Panchayath, Ongole Sub Registrar area, bounded by: East: Land of Molakapalli Seethamma and Vemula China Kotaiah. South: Land of Thokuri Ramaiah and Thokuri Venkateswarlu. West: Sagar Canal. North: Land of Vemula China Kotaiah and Thakkellapati Musalaiah. (5) An extent of Ac. 1-72 Cents dry land situated at said village Sy. No. 255-2, bounded by: East: Land of Thakkellapati Krishnaiah. South: Land of Annu Venkat RAo. West: Sagar Canal. North: Land of Sivarabu Lakshminarayana. An extent of Ac. 2-53 Cents of land situated at Valluru Village and an extent of Ac. 3-97 cents in Vasepalli Village, a total extent of Ac. 6-50 cents in both the villages. SCHEDULE ‘D’ PROPERTY: Details of the Share of Property allotted to Pillutla Purushotham Sarma among us: (1) Boundaries of dry land in an extent of Ac. 1-00 Cents situated at Survey No. 461-1, Vallur Village, joined in Valluru Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area: East: Chivukula Koteswara Sarma. South: Schedule ‘B’ Property in Item No. 2. SCHEDULE ‘D’ PROPERTY: Details of the Share of Property allotted to Pillutla Purushotham Sarma among us: (1) Boundaries of dry land in an extent of Ac. 1-00 Cents situated at Survey No. 461-1, Vallur Village, joined in Valluru Panchayath area, Ongole Sub Registrar area: East: Chivukula Koteswara Sarma. South: Schedule ‘B’ Property in Item No. 2. West: Chivukula Koteswara Sarma to some extent and Burra Anjamma to some extent. North: Land of Burra Kotaiah. (2) An extent of Ac. 0-78 Cents of land in the above said Valluru village Sy. No. 461-1 bounded by: East: Jammulapalem Donka (path). South: Burra Anjamma. West: Chivukula Koteswara Sarma and Burra Anjamma. North: Schedule ‘D’ Property and Item No. 1 to some extent and Chivukula Koteswara Sarma to some extent. (3) An extent of Ac. 0-50 cents of wet land situated in the said Valluru Village Sy. No. 342-6B, bounded by: East: Irrigation Canal. South: Land of Pillutla Venkata Subrahmanya Vara Prasad. West: Pillutla Veera Raghavaiah. North: Land of Chundi Somireddy. (4) An extent of Ac. 3-83 Cents dry land situated at said Vasepallipaud village Sy. No. 230, joined in Vasepallipadu Grama Panchayat, Ongole Sub Registrar area, bounded by: East: Path (Donka). South: Land of Bathina Swarajyam. West: Land of Narra Babaiah Rama Kotaiah. North: Land of Anumalasetty Venkata Subbaiah and Thokuri Mohana Rao. And extent of Ac. 2-28 Cents of land at Valluru village, an extent of Ac. 3-83 cents of land situated at Vasepallipadu Village, a total extent of Ac. 6-11 cents of land in the two villages (Six Acres Eleven Cents). SCHEDULE ‘E’ PROPERTY: Details of the Share of Property allotted to Pillutla Anasuyamma among us: An extent of Ac. 1-00 cents of dry land situated at Survey No. 539-1, Valluru Village, joined in Valluru Panchayath of Ongole Sub Registrar area, bounded by.” East: Chivukula Sriramulu. South: Karavedi Challaiah. West: Damacherla Seshaiah. North: Pillutla Sriramulu in the same number. 1. Sd/- Pillutla Sriramulu. 2. Sd/- Pillutla Veera Rahgavaiah. 3. Sd/- Pillutla Subrahmanya Sarma. 4. Sd/- Pillutla Purushotham Sarma. 5. Impression of Pillutla Anasuyamma. Witnesses: 1. Sd/- K.S. Narayana 2. Sd/- Sivaraju Satyanarayana Drafted by: Sd/- Vuppaluri Narasimha Dated: 24-6-1986 Notarised as Serial No. 257/86. Sd/- V.O. Subba Rao, dated 24.6.1986, State Notary, Andhra Pradesh, Ongole. Seal Two Notarial Stamps. TEN STAMP PAPERS WORTH Rs. 0.50 Paisa each, total stamp value: Rs. 5/- RUPEES FIVE ONLY.” 9. 5. Impression of Pillutla Anasuyamma. Witnesses: 1. Sd/- K.S. Narayana 2. Sd/- Sivaraju Satyanarayana Drafted by: Sd/- Vuppaluri Narasimha Dated: 24-6-1986 Notarised as Serial No. 257/86. Sd/- V.O. Subba Rao, dated 24.6.1986, State Notary, Andhra Pradesh, Ongole. Seal Two Notarial Stamps. TEN STAMP PAPERS WORTH Rs. 0.50 Paisa each, total stamp value: Rs. 5/- RUPEES FIVE ONLY.” 9. As held by the Honourable Apex Court in Yellapu Uma Maheswari and Another vs. Buddha Jagadheeswararao and Others (supra), nomenclature is given to the document is not decisive factor but the nature and substance of the transaction has to be determined with reference to the terms of the documents and that the admissibility of a document is entirely dependent upon the recitals contained in that document but not on the basis of the pleadings set up by the party who seeks to introduce the document in question. 10. The revision petitioner also filed copy of written statement filed by the respondent No. 2/Defendant No. 2 wherein it is alleged that the revision petitioner/plaintiff not participated in any family arrangement because there is no custom in the family to allot share to the female members who already married. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that in spite of the said averments in the written statement of defendant No. 2, property is allotted to mother which itself shows that it is a partition deed. 11. The learned trial Court relied on a decision in Ms. Kavitha Goud vs. Nookala Sudarshan Reddy and Others, AIR 2004 A.P. 326 . Wherein it is held at Para 31, which reads as under: 31. The next question is whether Ex.B14 is a ‘family settlement’ or a family arrangement. In Kale case (supra), while considering what ‘family settlement’ or ‘family arrangement’ is, Fazal Ali J. speaking for himself and V.R. Krishna Iyer J. observed as follows in Paras 9 and 10: “The object of the arrangement is to protect the family from long drawn litigation or perpetual strifes which mar the unity and solidarity of the family and create hatred and bad blood between the various members of the family........ (10) In other words to put the binding effect and the essentials of a family settlement in a concretised form, the matter may be reduced into the form of the following propositions: (1) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family. (2) The said settlement must be voluntary and should not be induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. (3) The family arrangement may be even oral in which case no registration is necessary. (4) It is well-settled that registration would be necessary only if the terms of the family arrangement are reduced into writing. Here also, a distinction should be made between a document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and a mere memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of the record or for information of the Court for making necessary mutation. In such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and, therefore, does not fall within the mischief of S.17 (2) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, not compulsorily registerable. (5) The members who may be parties to the family arrangement must have some antecedent title, claim or interest even a possible claim in the property which is acknowledged by the parties to the settlement. Even if one of the parties to the settlement has no title but under the arrangement the other party relinquishes all its claims or titles in favour of such a person and acknowledges him to be the sole owner, then the antecedent title must be assumed and the family arrangement will be upheld and the Courts will find no difficulty in giving assent to the same. (6) Even if bona fide disputes, present or possible, which may not involve legal claims are settled by a bona-fide family arrangement which is fair and equitable the family arrangement is final and binding on the parties to the settlement.” It is, therefore, clear that a family settlement would be entered into to purchase peace by resolving any of the existing disputes or rival claims, or claims or disputes which may or likely to arise in future. The written statement of defendants 1 and 2 does not speak of a family settlement in 1954. What is stated therein is that there was an oral partition in 1954. Though in a family settlement or family arrangement there may b e sharing of immovable property, it is not ‘partition’ in normal sense of the term. It is not the case of the first defendant that during 1954 there was bad blood between him and the third defendant, or that thee was a dispute regarding any property either allotted to his share or to the share of third defendant or the property that was allegedly kept joint in 1948 partition. It is not even alleged in the written statement of defendants 1 and 2 that they, in contemplation of a future dispute, entered into a family settlement or arrangement any time after 1948 or in 1954. So, Ex.B14 is not and cannot be a document relating to “family settlement” or “family arrangement.” 12. The suit is filed by the revision petitioner against his brothers seeking partition and separate possession of plaint schedule properties and to allot 1/4th share to her. Wherein Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed written statement, but copy of written statement filed by the Respondent No. 3/Defendant No. 3 not placed before this Court for perusal. But translated copy of petition filed by the respondent No. 3/Defendant No. 3 to receive document is available and placed before this Court which shows that Respondent No. 3/Defendant No. 3 filed document dated 24.06.1986 which he intended to mark in his evidence which objected by the petitioner/plaintiff counsel and the said objection is overruled by the trial Court by relying on the ratio laid down in Kavitha Goud by GPA vs. N. Sudarshan Reddy, AIR 2004 A.P. 326 (DB) case referred supra. On perusal of copy of document dated 24.06.1986 and its English translation which clearly shows that they have been separately enjoying their respective shares of the properties for the past four years and as no document is executed while making partition at the time, today they have executed the partition list as per the said partition. On perusal of copy of document dated 24.06.1986 and its English translation which clearly shows that they have been separately enjoying their respective shares of the properties for the past four years and as no document is executed while making partition at the time, today they have executed the partition list as per the said partition. It is also specifically mentioned that as per the said oral partition, different schedule properties allotted to the father, sons and mother which they said to be already taken possession of their respective shares and enjoying the same by paying relevant taxes and it is only averred that father shall enjoy ‘A’-schedule property allotted to him without absolute rights avoiding him from alienating the property to others. Except the said recitals in the document, the entire document dated 24.06.1986 shows that no right is created or extinguished under the document and recitals of the document only shows that it is reduced into writing recording past partition and enjoyment of the respective shares of the property by parties to the document due to that it cannot be said that it is a partition deed and it is only a partition list regarding the past oral partition as rightly held by the learned trial Judge as per the ration laid down by this Court Division Bench in Ms. Kavitha Goud by GPA vs. N. Sudarshan Reddy (supra). 13. Now the question arose when partition list is also treated as an instrument of partition in view of Andhra Pradesh State (Amendment) to Section 2 (15) including memorandum regarding past partition within the definition of instrument of partition, the document dated 24.06.1986 is liable for stamp duty and registration. The said Andhra Pradesh Amendment came into force with effect from 16.08.1986. The said document is prior to the Andhra Pradesh Amendment to Section 2 (15) of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The said amendment cannot be treated as retrospective effect and will not affect the documents which were executed prior to 16.08.1986. Prior to said amendment, a memorandum regarding past partition cannot be treated as instrument of partition which attracts stamp duty and penalty. The said amendment cannot be treated as retrospective effect and will not affect the documents which were executed prior to 16.08.1986. Prior to said amendment, a memorandum regarding past partition cannot be treated as instrument of partition which attracts stamp duty and penalty. As the document in question is dated 24.06.1986 is prior to the Andhra Pradesh amendment to Section 2 (15) of Indian Stamp Act, the document dated 24.06.1986 being family partition list is not liable for stamp duty and registration as it only recorded the past oral partition which is permissible in the family as held by the Honourable Apex Court in Kale and Others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1976 SC 807 relied on by this Court Ms. Kavitha Goud by GPA vs. N. Sudarshan Reddy (supra). Wherein as per Para-4 it is held that document containing the terms and recitals of a family arrangement made under the document and only memorandum prepared after the family arrangement had already been made either for the purpose of record or for opinion of the Court for making necessary mutation and in such a case the memorandum itself does not create or extinguish any rights in immovable properties and therefore does not fall within a mischief of Section 17 (2) of Registration Act and is therefore not compulsorily registerable. 14. This Court did not find any illegality and irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Judge warrants interference of this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In the result, this Revision Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 16. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Interim stay, if any, granted, shall stands vacated.