Bellam Chenchiah vs Nellore Manjulamma
2024 Latest Caselaw 10276 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10276 AP
Judgement Date : 14 November, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bellam Chenchiah vs Nellore Manjulamma on 14 November, 2024

APHC010547932
    022              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                                 PRADESH                   [346
                              AT AMARAVATI                  0]
                       (Special Original Jurisdiction)

      THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
           TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

                CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2047/2022

Between:

Bellam Chenchiah and Others                     ...PETITIONER(S)

                                 AND

Nellore Manjulamma                              ...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

   1 SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
   .

Counsel for the Respondent:

   1 PILLIX LAW FIRM
   .

The Court made the following:
                                    2




        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

               CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2047 of 2022

ORDER:

1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket

Order dated 26.07.2022 in O.S.No. 59 of 2020 passed by the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District.

2. The Petitioners are the Plaintiffs. A suit was filed for agreement of

sale dated 27.06.2019 said to have been executed by the Defendant

in their favour. At the time of marking the documents, an objection

was taken by the Defendant questioning the admissibility of the suit

agreement of sale on the ground that it is liable for stamp duty and

penalty as it has all the characteristics of sale as defined in Section

54 of the Transfer of the Property Act.

3. The trial Court after placing reliance on the Judgments of this

Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Ch. Srinivas v Moola

Sujatha and others1, Om Prakash V. Lakshminarayana2 and B.

Ratnamala v G. Rudramma3 held that the agreement in question

has all the characteristics of a sale as contemplated under Article 47-

A of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act and that the Plaintiff is

2010 (1) ALD 246

AIR 2014 SC 123

1999 (6) ALD 160

liable to pay stamp duty and penalty for being admitted in evidence.

Questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri Sivaprasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the

Petitioners and Sri Aditya Harsha Vardhan, learned counsel,

representing Pillix Law Firm.

5. The point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision

Petition is:

" Whether the document has all the trapping of sale".

6. The document was filed by the Petitioners vide USR No.

27711/2023, dated 15.03.2023. A reading of the agreement of sale

would indicate that total sale consideration is Rs.18,40,000/- and that

the Defendant has received entire sale consideration. Further, the

agreement of sale obligates the Plaintiffs to pay the taxes pertaining

to the scheduled land.

7. In the agreement of sale, it was also mentioned that the

Plaintiffs are entitled to enjoy the property with absolute rights, but

the registration was postponed as the land was shown in the

prohibited list of lands under Section 22-A of Registration Act,1908.

The agreement of sale further mentions that as and when the

scheduled land is excluded from the Prohibited list of properties, the

Defendant would execute the sale deed without claiming any further

monetary benefits.

8. The fact that the entire sale consideration was received by the

Defendant and the plaintiff was permitted to enjoy the scheduled

property with absolute rights along with obligation to pay taxes

pertaining to the land makes it explicit that the document in question

has all the trappings of "sale".

9. The Explanation-I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp

Act as applicable to the State reads thus:

" Explanation I: An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a ' Sale' under this article.

Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed, in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause (B) of Article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed".

10. As per the above explanation, an agreement of sale followed

by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale. In this case,

the entire sale consideration was received and absolute rights to

enjoy the scheduled property was given in the document.

11. It is a matter of prudence that when a person had paid entire

consideration and was given right to enjoy the schedule property

with absolute rights, the same implicitly includes possession of the

property. There cannot be any enjoyment of property without

possession. Apart from that the Petitioner was obligated to pay land

taxes also. By clever draftsmanship, the word possession though

not was explicitly mentioned, and was apparently camouflaged by

stating that Petitioner is given absolute rights to enjoy the property.