Alla Gopal Reddy vs Guntoji Yadagiri And 4 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3801 Tel

     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

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.

2015 (11) Supreme Court Reports 849

2017 (1) ALT 299

2019 (5) ALD 408

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

2012 (1) ALD 615 = 2012 (2) ALT 93

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