Dismissed

M Abdul Rahaman v. Kantamani Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana and 22 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2020CRP/2549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the admission of an 1985 agreement of sale as evidence. The trial court admitted the document because the stamp duty amendment came into force in August 1986, not April 1995. The High Court upheld this finding.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; docket order affirmed; no order as to costs.

M Abdul Rahaman Vs Kantamani Veera Venkata… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Civil Revision Petition No.2549 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the docket Order, dated 16.06.2014 in O.S.No.394/2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District, admitting the document i.e., agreement of sale of the year 1985 in evidence on the same day. The suit was filed for various reliefs for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s share and to declare the sale deed, dated 06.01.1986 executed by defendants 1 to 6 in favour of 7^th defendant, and re-sale by 7^th defendant in favour of respondents 8 and 9, as illegal, null and void and other consequential reliefs.

¶4

The suit is being contested by the respondents and during the course of trial the document i.e., agreement of sale, dated 22.05.1985 evidencing delivery of the possession of the property was tendered for marking in the examinationin-chief of D.W.1. Then, the petitioner raised an objection that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty on the ground that when the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession, it is liable to be stamped under Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) (Amendment) (Act 17 of 1986). But, the trial Court held that the amendment of Act is came into force on 01.04.1995 whereas

¶5

¶6

the document i.e., the agreement of sale pertains to the year 1985. Therefore, no stamp duty and penalty need be paid and not sustained the objection raised by the petitioner/ 2^nd plaintiff before the trial Court.

¶7

Aggrieved by the Order passed by the Court below admitting the agreement of sale in evidence, present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by raising a specific contention that the amendment of the Act came into force on 01.04.1995 and when the document is tendered for marking before the trial Court, it is liable to be stamped under Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) (Amendment) (Act 17 of 1986). But the trial Court did not consider the same in proper perspective and committed an error in admitting said document in evidence.

¶8

During the course of hearing, Sri Butta Vijaya Bhasker, learned counsel for the petitioner/2^nd plaintiff reiterated the contentions urged in the petition more particularly with reference to the Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) (Amendment) (Act 17 of 1986) since the document is an agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession dated 22.05.1985, but without collecting stamp duty and penalty, the document cannot be admitted in evidence and prayed to set aside the docket Order passed by the Court below and reject Ex.B.9 as it is inadmissible in evidence.

¶9

¶10

There is no dispute regarding the date of execution of the document i.e., agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession. The document is marked as Ex.B.9 which is possessory agreement of sale, dated 22.05.1985. Undoubtedly, the document if executed on 16.08.1986 and on subsequent date the document is liable to be stamped according to Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) (Amendment) (Act 17 of 1986). But, for one reason or the other, the trial Court referred the irrelevant dated of commencement of amendment i.e., 01.04.1995, which pertains to Clause (d) of Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) (Amendment) (Act 17 of 1986) and not pertaining to Article 47(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) and explanation 1 thereto.

¶11

Therefore, the observation of the trial Court that the document was executed in the year 1985, whereas the amendment came into force on 01.04.1995, is erroneous on the face of it. Further, this amendment to Schedule (IA) by adding Article 47(A) came into force on 16.08.1986 by Act 17 of 1986. Whereas, the agreement of sale marked as Ex.B.9 which was executed on 22.05.1985 i.e., almost 1 year and 2 months prior to the amendment came into effect in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, absolutely, I find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/2^nd plaintiff for the reason that the document if

¶12

¶13

executed on 16.08.1986 or on subsequent date, it is liable for stamp duty under Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1908 (AP) (Amendment) (Act 17 of 1986), when it was executed prior to 16.08.1986, the stamp duty under Article 47(A) of Schedule (IA) need not be paid. Hence, the objections raised by the counsel for the petitioner/2^nd plaintiff does not stands to legal scrutiny and consequently the petition is liable to be dismissed, while affirming the docket Order, dated 16.06.2014 in O.S.No.394/2004 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District.

¶14

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no Order as to costs.

¶15

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶16

________________________________________ JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Date: 15.12.2020

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶21

Civil Revision Petition No.2549 of 2014

¶22

Date: 15.12.2020

¶23

M Abdul Rahaman v. Kantamani Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Abdul Rahaman v. Kantamani Veera Venkata Sathyanarayana and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seemala Viswanadhamand 3 Others Vs Seemala Satyanarayana

Bommareddy Sanjeeva Reddy at Jeeva Vs Arepally Venkata Naga Ramesh

Marupilla Appa Rao Vs Pothina Nageswara Rao

Srinivasa Floor Mill, W.G. Dist. Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., and 4 Others

Smt. Patchigolla Kusma Kumari Vs Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited

Neelapu Jamuna Vs Bobbili Nagamani