Guthu Ramadevi vs Shamakura Ilaiah Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3824 Tel

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

                  C.R.P. No.4362 of 2013


ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the

unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.71 of 2007 on the file of

VI Addl. District Judge, Warangal, against the order by which

the request of the petitioner/plaintiff to mark the unregistered

agreement of sale dated 17.12.2006 as a document on his

behalf in the suit proceedings. When the petitioner/plaintiff,

who was examined as PW.1 before the trial Court tendered

the above said sale agreement and when he wanted to mark

the document on his behalf, an objection was raised by the

defendants counsel on the ground that it requires stamp duty

and penalty, thereby the learned District Judge having heard

both parties rejected the request of the petitioner/plaintiff

vide his order dated 29.01.2013.

2. According to the finding in the above said order,

the District Judge was of the opinion the agreement of sale

dated 17.12.2006 requires stamp duty and penalty as such,

the same cannot be received in evidence.

SSRN,J

3. The present revision is filed against the said order

and in the grounds filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the

agreement of sale was executed without possession, thereby,

it does not require any stamp duty. The recitals of the

agreement of sale with regard to delivery of possession was

only to develop the property by laying roads, dividing the

property into house sites as such, it cannot be construed as

delivery of possession for the benefit of the

petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, according to the petitioner, no

stamp duty is required. The petitioner further averred that

the respondents/defendants have taken different stand in the

written statement contrary to each other including the stand

with regard to delivery of possession under the agreement of

sale. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court with regard to

admissibility of the document is incorrect and liable to be set

aside. The petitioner questioned the finding of the District

Judge that the delivery of possession of the suit schedule

property was for the benefit of the petitioner herein and

further claimed that the Court below without appreciating the

nature and object of the agreement of sale, came to a wrong

conclusion and the document does not attract any stamp duty SSRN,J

and penalty, thereby, sought for setting aside the order of the

District court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner/plaintiff.

5. The learned counsel has submitted that the

recitals of the document clearly show the delivery of

possession to the petitioner/plaintiff was only for the purpose

of development, thereby, it does not mean that the property

was delivered for the enjoyment of the petitioner/plaintiff as

such, the document does not attract stamp duty or penalty

but the Court below came to a wrong conclusion and held that

the document requires stamp duty and penalty as such, the

order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the agreement of sale dated 17.12.2006 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff require stamp duty and penalty and whether the order of the trial Court in dismissing the request of the petitioner to mark the document is liable to be set aside ?

7. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the above said suit for

specific performance of agreement of sale and also for a

perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants SSRN,J

etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession of the

enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

The respondents/defendants filed their written statement and

as rightly observed by the Court below they have taken

different stands in the written statement which are not

material for deciding the present issue. It seems from the

record that the plaintiff through PW.1 tendered agreement of

sale dated 17.12.2006 and wanted to exhibit the document in

support of the suit claim. The respondents/defendants raised

an objection on the ground that the document is outright sale

deed since there was delivery of possession to the

petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, it requires stamp duty and

penalty. Further it appears from the record that the

petitioner/plaintiff having placed reliance on judgment

between "B.Bhasker Reddy Vs. Bommireddy Pattabhi

Rami Reddy (died) Per L.Rs1" and another reported in

"Cheryala Srinivas Vs. Moola Sujatha2" and also another

judgment between "P.Venkatram Reddy Vs. Jetamoni

Gouramma3" argued that the document does not require any

stamp duty and penalty whereas, the learned counsel for the

(2010) 6 ALT 596

(2010)1 ALT 246

(2011)3 ALT 524/(2002) 5 ALT 506 SSRN,J

defendants relied on a judgment between "R.Shiv Rami

Reddy V. Malepati Subba Rangaiah and others4" argued

that the documents require stamp duty and penalty.

8. The petitioner/plaintiff did not dispute the

contents of the said agreement. The learned trial Court while

referring the sum and substance of the sale agreement at

page No.1, line 11, wherein it is stated that the property was

delivered to the petitioner/plaintiff for the purpose of

development, came to a conclusion that the document

indicates the delivery of possession of property to the

petitioner/plaintiff. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the

intention as could be gathered from the recitals of the

document clearly indicates that by virtue of the agreement,

the property was delivered to the petitioner/plaintiff for his

beneficial enjoyment thereby, the contents of the agreement

establish that there was delivery of property in pursuance to

the agreement of sale. In the judgment between

"B.Ratnamala V. G.Rudramma5", it was categorically held

that if delivery was affected prior to or subsequent to or at

the time of execution of the agreement, it attracts the

2011 (5) ALD 710

1999(6) ALD 160 (DB) SSRN,J

provisions of explanation-I to Articles 47-A in Schedule 1A of

Stamp Act, 1899. This judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in "Veena Hasmukh Jain V. State of

Maharastra6". As per the recitals of the document, it is very

clear that the property was delivered enabling the

petitioner/plaintiff to lay roads, develop the property and

divide the same as house plots and to sell the same to

different persons as per the convenience of the

petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, the document attracts stamp

duty and penalty and the Court below rightly negatived the

request of petitioner/plaintiff. The Court below while relying

on the judgment referred above between "R.Siva Rami

Reddy Vs. Malepati Subba Rangaiah" concluded that the

petitioner/plaintiff was put in possession of the property in

pursuance of the sale agreement. Therefore, it requires

stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner/plaintiff is unable to

establish that there was no such delivery of property for the

benefit of petitioner/plaintiff as such, the revision is not

maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

JT 1999 (1) SC Page-186 SSRN,J

9. In the result, the C.R.P. is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________ JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

22nd July, 2022.

PLV