ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. In both the civil revision petitions, the petitioner is the 9th defendant in O.S. No. 41 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. She is also the plaintiff in O.S. No. 7 of 2003 pending before the same Court, which she filed for permanent injunction. Both the suits are being tried together recording evidence in O.S. No. 41 of 2001. O.S. No. 41 of 2001 is a partition suit filed by the first respondent herein (hereafter called, the plaintiff) against respondents 2 to 24 and the petitioner. Petitioner herein (hereafter called, the 9th defendant), and respondents 1 to 8 are children of China Gangaraju, and respondents 10 to 24 are subsequent alienees. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a family settlement in 1983 with proper physical division of the properties, and that she is in possession of her respective share, but the plaintiff and others are interfering. She, therefore, filed O.S. No. 384 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, which was later transferred to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, as O.S. No. 7 of 2003. It is her case that after she filed the injunction suit, the plaintiff filed O.S. No. 41 of 2001, which is coming for trial. During the trial, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1316 of 2007 to send for No.3 Adangal for Faslies 1406 to 1408 in respect of R.S. Nos. 345/1, 349, 350/2, 390, 371/3, 126/2, 116 of Kommugudem Village from the file of CMA No. 47 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Eluru, for the purpose of marking the same through the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Tadepalligudem, as exhibits. The said application was rejected by the trial Court as delayed application. Against the said order dated 1.11.2007, CRP No.5304 of 2007 is filed.
2. The 9th defendant also filed I.A. No. 1242 of 2007 praying the Court to send the partition list dated 23.5.1983 to the District Registrar of Stamps and Registration, Eluru, to impound and levy stamp duty and penalty and duly certify by way of endorsement. The said application was also dismissed by the trial Court on 25.10.2007 on the ground that at a belated stage when the matter is under trial, the application cannot be accepted. Against this order, CRP No.5408 of 2007 is filed.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the first respondent, this Court accepts the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the documents, which the 9th defendant wants to summon from the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Eluru, have already been filed along with I.A. No. 1113 of 2003 in O.S. No. 7 of 2003, and indeed, they are marked, and therefore, there cannot be any difficulty for the trial Court to send for the documents, so that they can be marked by the MRO, Tadepalligudem, who is to be summoned by the 9th defendant.
4. The point that arises for consideration in CRP No. 5408 of 2007 is whether the right of the parties to the suit to lead best evidence to support his/ her case can be denied by conferring discretion on the trial Court either to impound the unstamped document or such party has a right to request the Court to impound the document at any stage of the suit. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Act, for brevity), bars a challenge to any instrument which has been admitted in evidence except on a ground mentioned under Section 61 of the Act. The mandatory provision in Section 36 of the Act shall be subject to the powers of the revisional Court regarding sufficiency of the stamps. Therefore, even if an unstamped instrument is marked by the trial Court or original authority, though it cannot be called in question before such authority, under Section 61 of the Act it can always be called in question and original authority shall be bound by the decision of the revisional authority. This, however, does not mean that a party should be denied right to request the Court to impound the unstamped instrument for levying the stamp duty/penalty and getting an endorsement under Section 42 of the Act, which is an effect of validating an unstamped instrument. There could be exceptions to this rule. For instance, if the entire case of a party to the suit rests on an instrument which is unstamped, and knowing fully well, a party does not come forward with clean hands to request the Court to impound the same, but at a belated stage in the suit or appeal or revision comes forward with such plea, the Court can always exercise its discretion and refuse to impound the document. In this situation such a right of the Court must be conceded having regard to inherent powers of the Court to dispense speedy and expeditious justice in the cases brought before it.
5. In this case, the first respondent herein (plaintiff) filed the suit after the petitioner asserted her right and went to the Court seeking injunction. Even at that stage the entire basis was that the partition list/partition deed, as the case may be. Presumably, due to improper advice, she was under the impression that being a partition list, it does not require stamp duty. Now the Court has come to a conclusion that it was not a partition list, but it was a partition deed. In such a case, in the considered opinion of this Court, delay, if any, does not matter, because it is only at the instance of the Court that an improperly stamped or inadequately stamped partition list has to be held to be partition deed. Actus curiae neminem gravabit is a principle of sound public policy which adumbrates the rule that no party should suffer from the mistake of the Court. When the document was put in issue before the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, at the stage of interlocutory proceedings, the document was not objected to and indeed, it appears, it was relied on. Therefore, if at an appellate stage, the Court comes to a conclusion that a suit document requires stamp duty, the party should be given a right to get such document validated as per Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, this Court holds that to the extent of lower Court holding that it is a partition deed but not partition list, no interference is called for, and the petitioner/9th defendant should be given an opportunity to get it impounded, stamped and penalized which she shall have to pay.
6. An application was moved before the Court to send the impugned partition list to the District Registrar. The Act or various notifications issued by the Government do not contain the Revenue Divisional Officer or the District Registrar to value the impounded document. It is only the District Collector, who has got that power as held by this Court in G. Ramesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda , wherein it was held:
The Government of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of their powers under 3(10)(d) of the General Clauses Act has issued notification vide G.O. Ms. No. 153, dated 25.3.1995 appointing the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps,1, authorizing to exercise the powers and perform the functions under the provisions of the Stamp Act. This notification becomes relevant with reference to the Section 76-A of the Stamp Act, which reds as under:
76-A. Delegation of certain powers.–The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, delegate-
(a) all or any of the powers conferred on it by Sections 2(9), 33(3)(b), 70(1), 74 and 78 to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority;
(b) all or any of the powers conferred on the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by Sections 45(1)(2), 56(1) and 70(2) to such Subordinate Revenue Authority as may be specified in the notification; and
(c) all or any of the powers conferred on it by Section 9(1)(b) to the Commissioner and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps.
Section 76-A of the Stamp Act enables the State Government to delegate its powers under various provisions of the Stamp Act including the power under Section 2(9)(b) of the Stamp Act to appoint any officer as the District Collector.
To enable the Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General) and the learned Counsel for the petitioners to produce the relevant notifications issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh appointing the Revenue Divisional Officers in the State generally or the Revenue Divisional Officer in Nalgonda specifically as the collector under Section 2(9)(b) of the Stamp Act, the matter was adjourned from time to time. No such notification issued by the Government under Section 2(9)(b) of the Stamp Act has been brought to the notice of this Court nor this Court is able to find such notification in any of the annuatated bare acts of Stamp Act or the commentaries. There is also no such notification issued by the Government delegating their powers under Section 2(9) of the Stamp Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority or any notification issued by the latter under Section 76-A of the Stamp Act in exercise of such delegated powers. Indeed, it is clearly admitted that so far Government or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority have not issued any notification authorizing the Revenue Divisional Officer to exercise powers exercisable by the District Collector under Sections 33, 38 and 40 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, any enquiry contemplated or being conducted by the respondent is without jurisdiction.
7. It is no doubt true that this Court while dealing with the matters under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is basically concerned with the question whether a Court subordinate to High Court has within the bounds of law and might in appropriate cases laid down practice rules as well. In all such cases, whether the party is not vigilant or does not come to the Court with clean hands, though the Court may not deny the right to the party to lead evidence or best evidence, such party should not be left without mulcting him/her with costs. In this case, though the petitioner/9th defendant might have got wrong advice, she is equally responsible for this state of affairs.
8. Thereiore, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner/ 9th defendant must be mulcted with costs, which are set at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to be paid by the petitioner to the learned Counsel for the first respondent appearing in this Court. On condition of such costs being paid, these two civil revision petitions are allowed. The trial Court is directed to impound the impugned partition deed in question, send it to the District Collector, West Godavari, for assessment of stamp duty and penalty. The trial Court need not postpone trial as it can be proceeded with examining other witnesses. The trial Court is also directed to send for the documents, which were filed along with CMA No. 47 of 2003.
1. (i) Section 3 of Registration Act, 1908 empowers the State Government to appoint an officer to be the Inspector General of Registration.
(ii) the Government of A.P., in G.O. Rt. No. 50, General Administration (Special A) Department, dated 4.1.1995, created super timescale I.A.S., Officers as the Commissioner and Inspector General in the Registration and Stamps Department.