Telangana High Court
Bamandlapally Prabhakar vs Kandikattu Sreekanth on 31 July, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
+ CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.2412 of 2025
% Dated 31.07.2025
# Bamandlapally Prabhakar
S/o.Bamandlapally Sadanandam,
aged about 33 years, Occ: private employee,
R/o. Plot No.26, CBCID Colony,
Rama Murthy Nagar, Near Hydernagar,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad and another
....Petitioners
VERSUS
$ Kandikattu Sreekanth
S/o.K. Subbaiah, aged: about 52 years,
Occ: Doctor,
R/o.H.No.6-3-347/9-s/b/502,
Dwarakapuri Colony,
Panjagutta, Hyderabad - 82
... Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioners : Mr. V. Umapathi Sarma
^ Counsel for Respondent :
< GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? CITATIONS:
1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2320
2. (2024) 3 SCC 232
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2412 of 2025
O R D E R:
This revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article
227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated
18.06.2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy,
in I.A.No.226 of 2025 in O.S.No.85 of 2020, where-under the
application filed by the petitioners/defendants to send the
agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 for impounding and to direct the
respondent/plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty before the
District Registrar, was dismissed.
2. Heard Mr. V. Umapathi Sarma, learned counsel for the
petitioners. The notice in respect of the respondent/plaintiff is
dispensed with, as the civil revision petition is being disposed of at
the admission stage.
3. The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the
respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2020. For the sake of
convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed
in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 before the Court below.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 before the District
Judge, Medak District, against the defendants seeking specific
performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 and for grant of
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents
from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till the
disposal of the suit and sought other consequential reliefs.
4.2. The above said suit was posted for further examination of the
plaintiff/PW.1. During the course of his examination, when the
plaintiff is marking the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 as an
exhibit, the counsel for the defendants had raised an objection
stating that the said document was insufficiently stamped, and,
hence, the same is not admissible in evidence and the document is
liable to be impounded. The Court below after verifying the
document directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty of
Rs.100/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid
the stamp duty of Rs.100/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-, i.e., total
amount is Rs.1,100/-, by way of challan on 20.01.2025.
4.3. Subsequently, the defendants have filed an application i.e.,
I.A.No.226 of 2025 under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act read with
151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to send the
agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 to the District Registrar,
Sangareddy, for impounding, and to direct the plaintiff to pay the
requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar.
4.4. The Court below after hearing both the parties dismissed the
said application, by its order dated 18.06.2025. Aggrieved by the
said order, the defendants field the present civil revision petition.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants:
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 is insufficiently stamped.
Hence, the said document is inadmissible in evidence. Unless and
until the plaintiff pays the deficit stamp duty and penalty, as per the
provisions of Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899
(hereinafter referred to, as 'the Act') the agreement of sale cannot be
marked as an exhibit. He further submitted that as per the
provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the agreement
of sale requires registration. If the said document is not registered,
the same cannot be marked as an exhibit.
5.2. He further submitted that as per the G.O.Ms.No.59 Revenue
(Registration) Department, dated 20.07.2021, issued by the
Government of Telangana, the District Registrar has to decide the
rates of the stamp duty payable on certain instruments under
various Articles of Schedule I-A of the Act, and as per Article 6(B) of
the Schedule IA of the Act, the stamp duty payable on sale
agreements without possession is chargeable of 0.5%. Hence, the
document relied upon by the plaintiff has to be sent to the District
Registrar, Sanga Reddy, for impounding. He further submitted that
the Court below, without properly considering the contentions raised
by the defendants, erroneously dismissed the application.
5.3. He further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is
barred by limitation. As per the terms and conditions of the
agreement of sale, the total consideration of the schedule property is
Rs.1.24 lakhs (Rupees one crore twenty four lakhs only) and the
plaintiff had paid only a meager amount of Rs.25 lakhs as advance
and the plaintiff had agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of
Rs.99 lakhs within a period of 45 days i.e., at the time of
registration, from the date of agreement of sale i.e., 28.02.2020.
However, the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale
consideration and not performed his part of contract, on the other
hand, filed the suit in October, 2020. Therefore, the suit filed by the
plaintiff is not maintainable under law and the same is barred by
limitation.
5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty 1; and
2. Alagammal and others v. Ganesan and another 2.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2320
(2024) 3 SCC 232
Analysis:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners/defendants and after perusal of the
material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff filed suit in
O.S.No.85 of 2020 against the defendants seeking specific
performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 and for grant of
perpetual injunction and other consequential reliefs. When the suit
is posted for further chief examination of the plaintiff/PW.1 and
marking the agreement of sale as an exhibit, the defendants raised
an objection that the agreement of sale was insufficiently stamped.
Hence, the same is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be marked
as an exhibit.
7. The record further reveals that the Court below, after duly
verifying the recitals of the agreement of sale found that the
document is executed on a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper and
further observed that the possession of the suit schedule property
was not delivered to the plaintiff, as such, the said document was
treated as agreement and as per Article 6(C) of Schedule IA of the
Act, initially it was prescribed stamp duty as Rs.100/-, but in view of
G.O.Ms.No.120 Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated
23.07.2015, the stamp duty on such document i.e., agreement of
sale, was enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-. Taking into
consideration the same, the Court below directed the plaintiff to pay
deficit stamp duty of Rs.100/- and ten times of penalty, which
comes to Rs.1,000/-. The record further reveals that pursuant to
the said order, the plaintiff paid deficit stamp duty and penalty,
totaling Rs.1,100/-, by way of challan on 20.01.2025 and the above
said document was impounded.
8. Thereafter, the defendants filed application i.e, I.A.No.226 of
2025 invoking the provisions under Section 38(2) of the Act to send
the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 to the District Registrar,
Sanga Reddy, for impounding and to direct the plaintiff to pay the
requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar.
9. The main contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants that the suit which was filed by the plaintiff
is barred by limitation on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid
the balance sale consideration within 45 days and failed to perform
his part of contract and the terms and conditions mentioned in the
agreement of sale are binding and the time is essence of the
contract, however, the plaintiff filed suit in October 2020 seeking
specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020, is
concerned, these aspects cannot be adjudicated in the present civil
revision petition, especially the revision arises against the impugned
order passed by the Court below in refusing to send the document
under Section 38(2) of the Act, especially the defendants have not
raised the above said ground in I.A.No.226 of 2025. It is trite law
that whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of
limitation or not, the same is disputed question of fact and law and
the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial.
10. The other contention raised by learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908, if the value of the immovable property is
Rs.100/- or upwards, the document is compulsorily required
registration and the value of the property mentioned in the
document is Rs.1.24 lakhs, hence, the document is not admissible
into evidence on the ground of non-registration, are not tenable
under law on the ground that the proviso to Section 49 of the
Registration Act, 1908, specifically envisages that in a suit for
specific performance of contract, unregistered agreement of sale can
be received into evidence when possession is not delivered pursuant
to the agreement of sale to the agreement holder.
11. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in Seetharama Shetty supra is not applicable to the
facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that in the above
said case, the plaintiff filed suit for grant of perpetual injunction
basing upon the agreement of sale and the Hon'ble Apex Court
directed the trial Court to send the agreement of sale dated
29.06.1999 to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp
duty and penalty. In the case on hand, the plaintiff filed the suit for
specific performance of agreement of sale and delivery of possession
of the suit schedule property and the instrument is only an
agreement of sale and stamp duty is to be paid under Article 6(c) of
the Schedule 1A of the Act, initially it was prescribed as Rs.100/-
and the stamp duty is enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- as per
G.O.Ms.no.20 Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated
23.07.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Court below collected deficit
stamp duty and ten times penalty.
12. The other judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the
petitioners/defendants in Alagammal supra, is also not applicable to
the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the
plaintiff therein filed suit for specific performance of agreement of
sale, damages and recovery of money with interest and the said suit
was dismissed by the Munsif, District Court, Dindigul, vide its
judgment and decree dated 10.09.2000 on the ground that the
plaintiff has not made any attempt to pay the balance sale
consideration within the stipulated time, as the time is essence of
contract, and also basing on his conduct. Against the same, the
plaintiff filed appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower
appellate Court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the
defendants filed appeal before the High Court at Madras and the
same was dismissed on 28.04.2009. Aggrieved by the said
judgment, the defendants filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed
by the High Court as well as the lower appellate Court and
confirmed the order of the Munsif, District Court, Dindigul.
13. In the case on hand, the suit is still pending, whether the suit
filed by the plaintiff is within the stipulated time pursuant to the
agreement of sale, whether the time is essence of contract and
whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of specific performance of
contract of sale as well as delivery of possession, these aspects are
disputed questions of facts and law and the same have to be
adjudicated in the main suit after full-fledged trial, but not in the
present revision, especially, the petitioner has not raised the above
pleas in I.A.No.226 of 2025 before the Court below.
14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any
irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error to interfere with the
impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Court below, to
exercise the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date:31.07.2025
L.R. copy to be marked.
mar
