Unstamped partition memorandum is inadmissible for any purpose, but partition may still be proved by independent evidence.

An unstamped instrument chargeable with duty is inadmissible for any purpose under the Indian Stamp Act, including to prove collateral matters, and an objection on stamping is sufficient to exclude a partition memorandum even if registration is also in issue. Independent oral and circumstantial evidence may still establish partition, including separate possession, separate revenue payment, and separate income-tax returns. The discussion therefore states that partition can be proved without the excluded memorandum when the remaining evidence shows that the parties ceased to remain joint in status before the suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether memoranda recording partition could be admitted in evidence despite being unstamped and unregistered; (ii) whether the oral evidence established partition between the brothers before the suit was instituted.

Issue (i): Whether memoranda recording partition could be admitted in evidence despite being unstamped and unregistered.

Analysis: Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, bars admission of an instrument chargeable with duty for any purpose unless duly stamped. A document excluded by that provision cannot be received even to prove a collateral matter. The reference to registration did not assist because the stamp objection was sufficient to exclude the memoranda.

Conclusion: The memoranda were inadmissible in evidence and could not be used for any purpose.

Issue (ii): Whether the oral evidence established partition between the brothers before the suit was instituted.

Analysis: Once the inadmissible memoranda were left out of account, the remaining evidence showed a physical division of a substantial part of the joint property in February 1939, separate possession thereafter, separate payment of land revenue, and separate income-tax returns. That evidence supported the inference that the parties had ceased to remain joint in status before the suit.

Conclusion: The oral evidence sufficiently proved partition before the suit.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the challenged documents were rightly excluded and the finding of partition before the suit was sustained, leaving the appellant entitled only to the limited relief already granted below.

Ratio Decidendi: An unstamped instrument chargeable with duty is inadmissible for any purpose, including collateral purposes, and partition may nevertheless be proved by independent oral and circumstantial evidence.

---