(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned Refusal Check Slip made by the first respondent vide Refusal No.RFL/Thirumangalam/7/2026 dated 22.07.2026 and quash the same and consequently direct him to register the Settlement Deed presented by the petitioner concerning the property measuring 1,800 square feet in Survey Nos.35/2C1A1A and 35/A2 situated at Maravankulam Village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District.)

1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2026, bearing Reference No. RFL/Thirumangalam/7/2026, whereby the respondent has declined to register the Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026 presented by the petitioner. The reasons stated in the impugned Refusal Check Slip read as under:-





                     Instrument of Partition vd;gJ gpd;tUkhW tpsf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ. Instrument of Partition means any instrument whereby coowners of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severalty, 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.



                     There can be no doubt that a final decree for partition passed by a civil court is an instrument of partition as defined in clause (15) of section 2 of the stamp act. It follows that such a decree can only be engrossed on stamp papers of sufficient value.



2. The petitioner presented a Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026, which was executed by her children, namely, Ravikumar and Ishwarya. The said Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026 was returned on the ground that in substance, the Settlement Deed amounts to a Partition Deed and therefore, the appropriate stamp duty payable on the partition under the Stamp Act, 1899, has to be paid.

3. The impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2026 states that a decree in a partition suit is an instrument of partition within the meaning of Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, the decree should bear the stamp duty on the entire value of the property which was the subject matter of the suit.

4. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who was estranged with her husband, had filed a partition suit in O.S.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Court, Madurai, against her husband, Manikavasagam, father-in-law and brothers-in-law. The said suit was filed by the petitioner in her capacity as the guardian of her two minors children.

5. A preliminary decree was passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge on 18.07.2012, whereby a 2/15th share was allotted to each of the petitioner's children, namely, Ravikumar and Ishwarya, who have since attained the age of majority.

6. Aggrieved by the said preliminary decree, the third defendant in the said suit, namely, Manikavasagam, the husband of the petitioner, preferred an appeal before this Court in A.S.(MD) No.33 of 2013. In the said appeal, the petitioner's two children, who were then minors, were the first and second respondents. The petitioner's brothers-in-law filed Cross Appeal No.19 of 2013.

7. Therein, a compromise memo was filed by them, as the two children had already attained the age of majority. The Court thus passed the following decree on 02.08.2024:-

                     “This Appeal and Cross Objections are coming on for hearing on this date and upon hearing the arguments of MR.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate for the Appellant in AS and 1st Respondent in Cross Objection and of MR.R.ARAVINDAN, Advocate for the 1st & 2nd Respondents in AS and 2nd and 3rd Respondents in Cross Objection and of MR.M.SARAVANAN ADVOCATE FOR MR.R.PON KARTHIKEYAN, Advocate for the 3rd to 6th Respondents in AS and the Cross Objectors in the Cross Objection and the parties herein having entered into a compromise between themselves and having filed a Memo of compromise dated 02.08.2024 in U.S.R.No.27376/2024 requesting this Court to pass a decree in terms of compromise thereof upon perusing the grounds of Appeal and the Cross Objection, the judgment and decree of the Court of First Instance and the material papers in the Suit and the memorandum of compromise duly signed by the parties and their respective counsels, this Court while disposing of the Appeal and closing the Cross Objection and taking into consideration that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein / Plaintiffs are received maintenance amount till 31.07.2024, thereafter they have attained the age of majority and also taking into consideration and recorded that the parties herein / Appellant and Respondents are already have taken possession of their respective shares, in view of the compromise entered between them. The original Memo of compromise dated 02.08.2024 in U.S.R.No. 27376/2024 is annexed herewith, doth order and decree as follows,

                     (1) That the Appellant herein / 3rd Defendant and the Respondents herein / Plaintiffs and 1,2,4 & 5 Defendants have divided the suit property, and the vacant land situated on the extreme eastern side of the property measuring 30 feet east - west and 60 feet north - south marked as 'ABCD' in the sketch annexed herewith be and hereby is allotted to the share of the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein / Plaintiffs;

                     (2) that the area marked as 'CDEF' in the sketch be and hereby is allotted to the share of the Appellant herein / 3rd Defendant, namely Manickavasagam;

                     (3) that the area marked as 'EFGF' in the sketch be and hereby is allotted to the share of 6th Respondent herein / 5th Defendant, namely Malayarasa Pandi;

                     (4) that the area marked as 'GHIJKLMN' in the sketch along with building be and hereby is allotted to the share of the 5th Respondent herein / 4th Defendant, namely Manimegalai;

                     (5) that the area marked as 'MNOPQRS' and 'QRST' in the sketch along with building be and hereby is allotted to the share of the 4th Respondent herein / 2nd Defendant, namely Manimaran;

                     (6) that the area markes as 'PQTU' in the sketch along with building building be and hereby allotted to the share of 3rd Respondent herein / 1st Defendant, namely Malarkann;

                     (7) that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein / Plaintiffs be and hereby are acknowledge that they received the maintenance amount of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) from the 3rd Respondent herein / 1st Defendant;

                     (8) that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein / Plaintiffs be and hereby are agree to set aside the clause 2 of the decree in O.S.No.63 of 2010 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Madurai, regarding payment of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) towards maintenance;

                     (9) that the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein / Plaintiffs and the 3 to 6th Respondents herein / 1,2,4 & 5th Defendants be and hereby is no mutual claim between them; and

                     (10) that there be no costs in this Appeal Suit and Cross Objection.”

8. Thus, it is evident that as per the Joint Compromise Memo based on which the decree was passed by this Court on 02.08.2024 in A.S.(MD) No.33 of 2013, the petitioner's children were entitled to 1800 sq.ft. of land, in respect of which they have now executed the Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026, which has been refused to be registered by the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2026.

9. As per Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908, a decree passed in a partition suit is not compulsorily registrable. However, all that are required under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules made thereunder have to be complied with, including the requirement of making the appropriate entry in the relevant Register, wherever applicable.

10. In fact, as per Rule 87 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders read with Form No. 8 to it, every decree with respect to immoveable property shall state, as part of the description thereof, (I) the registration district or sub district in which the same is situate; and (II) In cases where the value of the property is required to be estimated for the purpose of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955(Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1955).

11. Form No. 8 shall be annexed to the decree, certified by the officer of the court. In the Form statement of particulars shall be specified. This statement of particulars shall be furnished to every party applying for a copy of the decree.

12. Rule 87 of the Civil rules of Practice and Circular Orders is reproduced below:-

                     “87. Statement of registration district in decree as to immoveable property:- Every decree with respect to immoveable property shall state, as part of the description thereof, the registration district or subdistrict in which the same is situate and in cases where the value of the property is required to be estimated for thr purpose of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955(Tamil Nadu Act XIV of 1955). There shall be annexed to the decree, a statement of the particulars mentioned in Form No.8 certified by the officer of the court; and a copy thereof shall be furnished to every party applying for a copy of the decree.”

13. The impugned order refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Board of Revenue v. Moideen Rowther, (1955) 2 MLJ 635 (FB), wherein it has been observed as follows:-

                     There can be no doubt that a final decree for partition passed by a civil court is an instrument of partition as defined in clause (15) of section 2 of the stamp act. It follows that such a decree can only be engrossed on stamp papers of sufficient value.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankar Balwant Lokhande (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande and others, AIR 1995 SC 1211 : 1995 INSC 187, while passing its order in the context of a decree in a partition suit, observed as follows:-

                     “12. As to Maksudan's case (supra), we state that it had not been correctly decided. Limitation does not begin to run from the date when direction is given to pass final decree. Mere giving of direction to supply stamped paper for passing final decree does not amount to passing a final decree. Until the final decree determining the rights of the parties by metes and bound is drawn up and engrossed on stamped paper(s) supplied by the parties, there is no executable decree. In this behalf, it is necessary to note that section 2(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, as amended by the local Act, provides that a decree of civil. court is required to be stamped as per Article 46 in Schedule-1. Section 34 thereof lays down that "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". Therefore, executing court cannot receive the preliminary decree unless final decree is passed as envisaged under Order 20 Rule 18(2). After final decree is passed and a direction is issued to pay stamped papers for engrossing final decree thereon and the same is duly engrossed on stamped paper(s), it becomes executable or becomes an instrument duly stamped. Thus, condition precedent is to draw up a final decree and then to engross it on stamped paper(s) of required value. These two acts together constitute final decree, crystallizing the rights of the parties in terms of the preliminary decree. Till then, there is no executable decree as envisaged in Order 20 Rule 18(2), attracting residuary Article 182 of the old Limitation Act. Contrary views of the High Courts, are not good law. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Smt.Kotipalli Mahalakshmama v. K.Ganeswara Rao, AIR 1960 AP 54, correctly decided the question of law which held that the limitation begins to run only after a final decree is engrossed on stamped papers.”

15. This Court in M.Devaki Ammal v. The Inspector General of Registration and others, rendered on 20.09.2024 in W.P.No.27134 of 2024, observed as follows:-

                     “4. There is no quarrel with regard to the position that final decree passed by the Civil Court shall be treated as a partition deed. Therefore, the same is liable to be affixed with stamp duty and registration charges as a partition deed. In the case on hand, the petitioner has paid maximum stamp duty applicable to the partition deed under Article 45 of Tamil Nadu Stamp Act. Likewise, the petitioner is liable to pay 1% of the registration charges on the suit value. The suit is valued at Rs.5,27,017/- (rupees five lakhs twenty seven thousand and seventeen only) towards 1/5th value of the petitioner's share. The 1% of the suit value is Rs.5,271/-. The petitioner paid registration charges of Rs.5,300/- as seen from the receipt included in the typed set of papers. Therefore, the 1% of the registration charges as applicable to the partition deed is also paid. In such circumstances, the objection raised by the 2nd respondent as if the petitioner failed to pay the required stamp duty and registration charges is not correct and accordingly, the impugned refusal check slip is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The petitioner is directed to represent the document before the 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The 2nd respondent shall register the same if it is otherwise in order. No costs.”

16. There is no dispute that the petitioner's children were entitled to their share in the property as per the Joint Memo of Compromise, based on which the decree was passed on 02.08.2024 in A.S.(MD) No.33 of 2013.

17. The contention of the respondent that stamp duty has to be paid on the entire value of the property which was the subject matter of the Joint Memo of Compromise, based on which the decree was passed on 02.08.2024 in A.S.(MD) No.33 of 2013, is without merit. The parties to the suit are entitled for a separate decree(s) on payment of the necessary Court Fees under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.

18. Therefore, where a party to a partition suit desires to register the decree, after the decree is drafted, the party is required to first pay the Stamp Duty of the requisite value before the Court.

19. Earlier, under Rule 12 of the Civil Rules of Practice the decree in a partition suit shall be engrossed on nonjudicial stamp paper as provided by Article 45, Schedule I of Act II of 1899 as amended by Madras Act in Volume-I, Part-II, Chapter-III at page No. 263, which read as under:-

                     Rule.12. (1) The final decree shall in all cases specify the several portions of the joint property assigned to the several parties to their respective shares.

                     (2) The decree in partition suits shall be engrossed on non- judicial stamp paper as provided by Article 45, Schedule I of Act II of 1899 as amended by Madras Act.”

20. However, Rule 12 of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders as extracted above is not available in the revised Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders. At the same time, it appears the practice is still in vogue. Payment of both Court Fee and Stamp Duty can be electronically made.

21. Above stated Rule was referred to in Inturi China Venkatappa vs Inturi Peda Venkatappa And Ors. (1943) 2 MLJ 112, AIR 1943 MADRAS 650. Relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-

                     “2. Before a decree for partition can be executed the holder must pay the stamp duty required by Article 45 of the Indian Stamp Act and have the decree drawn up on non-judicial stamp paper. Rule 12 of the rules relating to partition suits under the Code of Civil Procedure and under the Partition Act, 1893, drawn up by this Court and to be found at page 263 of Vol. I of the Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders directs this to be done. Sub-rule (3) states that on the failure of the party in whose favour the order is made to produce the necessary non-judicial stamp paper within the time fixed or granted by the Court, the Court shall have the decree drawn up on unstamped paper and deal with it as an instrument within the operation of Chapter IV of the Indian Stamp Act and send the unstamped' decree to the Collector for realization of the stamp duty under Section 48 of the Stamp Act and return of the decree duly stamped to the Court passing the decree with a certificate, by endorsement thereon that the proper stamp duty has been collected. The final decree in this case did not direct that the stamp paper should be produced within a specified time and apparently no action was taken under Subrule (3) of Rule 12. The amount of stamp required in this case was Rs. 327-7-0.”

22. In this case, neither the petitioner nor the petitioner's children desired to register the Decree in view of the exemption under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908. It reads as under:-

                     “17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.

                     2. Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) applies to

                     (i) ......

                     ........

                     (vi) any decree or order of a Court [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding.”

23. In my view, the right of the petitioner's children to settle the property in favour of the petitioner by registering the Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026 cannot be diluted by calling upon either the petitioner or the petitioner's children to pay the stamp duty on the entire extent of the property, which is the subject matter of the Joint Memo of Compromise, based on which the decree was passed on 02.08.2024 in A.S.(MD) No.33 of 2013.

24. As far as the petitioner's children, who have executed the Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026, are concerned, they are merely required to pay the stamp duty on the extent of the property allotted to them as per the Joint Memo of Compromise, based on which the decree was passed on 02.08.2024 in A.S.(MD) No.33 of 2013.

25. As far as the others are concerned, it is equally open to them to either register the decree of the Court or convey the property on payment of the necessary stamp duty for further transfer.

26. Therefore, the impugned Refusal Check Slip dated 22.07.2026 is liable to be quashed, with a consequential direction to the respondent to register the Settlement Deed dated 22.07.2026, subject to the petitioner or the petitioner's children having paid the Stamp Duty as per Article 58 of I Schedule of the Stamp Act, 1899 on the extent of the property which the petitioner's children seek to convey to the petitioner.

27. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.