HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.344 of 2020
ORDER:
1. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, assailing the orders dated 03.02.2020 in O.S.No.78 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.
2. Brief facts :- The petitioner- plaintiff has filed the original suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.01.2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. When the evidence was in progress in that suit, the plaintiff requested for exhibiting the agreement of sale dated 07.01.2016, which was scribed on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper. In fact, the said agreement of sale dated 07.01.2016 was executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff for transfer of suit schedule property i.e. the land admeasuring Ac.8-00 gts., in Survey No.214 situated at Pedda Kaparthy village, Chityal Mandal for a sale consideration of Rs.38,40,000/- and an amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was already paid and it was agreed that the balance sale consideration will be paid at the time of registration. While recording the evidence of PW-1 for further chief-examination, it appears the Court has insisted for impounding the document with stamp duty and penalty and the learned counsel for plaintiff contended that since it is already executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper, he is not required to pay any penalty. The learned Presiding 2 AVR, J C.R.P.No.344 of 2020 Officer of the Court, while relying on the following judgments, deferred the further chief-examination of the plaintiff :
1. Yellapu Uma Maheswari v. Budda Jagadesshwar Rao1
2. Vysharamam v. Chanduru Bhushana Kumari2
3. Y. Vijayalakshmi v. Ashish Agarwal3
3. The learned counsel for petitioner seeks to submit that the document dated 07.01.2016 is only a simple agreement of sale. It is not followed by delivery of possession and it is executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper as required under Article 6(c) of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and it is not required to be impounded with deficit stamp duty or penalty.
4. I gave an anxious reading to the said agreement of sale dated 07.01.2016. It is true that it is not followed by delivery of possession. On the other hand, it is clearly mentioned at para 4 of page 3 that the vendors shall handover the vacant physical possession of the said property to the purchaser at the time of registration of regular sale deed. Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act deals with agreement or memorandum of arrangement not otherwise provided for. Article 6 (c) deals with "In any other case". A simple agreement of sale is covered by Article 6(c) and Rs.100/- stamp duty is sufficient for simple agreement as it is not followed by delivery of possession. 1 2015 (11) Supreme Court Reports 849 2 2017 (1) ALT 299 3 2019 (5) ALD 408 3 AVR, J C.R.P.No.344 of 2020 This Court in K.Sudhakar Reddy v. Sudha Constructions4, has clearly held that such a simple agreement of sale will fall under the definition of Article 6(c) of Schedule I-A of Stamp Act and Rs.100/- stamp duty is sufficient.
5. I have carefully perused the principles laid in the decisions 1 to 3 supra. In all these decisions, it is clearly mentioned that possession of property was delivered either prior to execution or at the time of execution of the documents. In fact, in the latest decision in Y.Vijayalakshmi's case (3 supra), it is held that when the agreement of sale is followed by or evidencing delivery of possession, it shall be chargeable as a sale under Article 47-A, hence, stamp duty of Rs.100/- thereon cannot be said to be adequate. Whereas, in the instant case, it is categorically mentioned in the document dated 07.01.2016 that the vendor shall handover vacant physical possession of the said property to the purchaser at the time of registration of regular sale deed, which amounts that possession of property is not delivered.
6. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, the principles laid in the decisions mentioned in the order impugned, are not applicable to the case on hand, as, in the instant case, the property was not delivered either prior to the agreement of sale or with the agreement of sale.
7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 03.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.78 of 4 2012 (1) ALD 615 = 2012 (2) ALT 93 4 AVR, J C.R.P.No.344 of 2020 2016 refusing to accept the agreement of sale dated 07.01.2016 is set aside and the Court below is directed to receive the said document in evidence subject to proof and relevancy, as the said document is sufficiently stamped as required under Article 6(c) of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J Date: 26.11.2021 ajr