Allowed

Ailineni Narender Rao v. Gattu Maruthi , Gattu Maruthi Rao

Telangana HC5 Feb 2010CRP/116/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging a lower court order requiring payment of stamp duty and penalty under Schedule I-A(6) for an agreement of sale executed on Rs. 100 stamp paper. The High Court held that since the document was on proper stamp paper and did not create rights for the vendor, the impugned order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty under Schedule I-A(6) was set aside.

Ailineni Narender Rao Vs Gattu Maruthi , Gattu Maruthi… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.116 of 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

Alineni Narender Rao, S/o. Rajeswar Rao and another

¶8

..... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

Gattu Maurthi @ Gattu Mauthi Rao, S/o. Hanmandlu and others

¶11

....RESPONDENTS

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶14

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.116 OF 2010

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the docket order, dated 17.11.2009, passed in O.S.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, whereunder and whereby, the document, agreement of Sale, dated 12.10.2005, was ordered to be received by paying stamp duty and penalty.

¶17

It is not in dispute before this Court that Section 17 (2) (v) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, “the Act”) lays down that where a document other than the documents specified in sub-section (1-A) except an agreement of sale as mentioned in clause (g) of sub-section (1) not in itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any right, but merely creating a right to obtain another document, the same is compulsorily registerable.

¶18

Admittedly, the document does not create any right to the vendor. Therefore, it is not compulsorily registerable document under Section 17 of the Act. It can be received in evidence. But the only objection was that the trial Court ordered for payment of stamp duty and penalty under Schedule I-A (6) of the Act, which reads that the Agreement or Memorandum of an agreement not otherwise provided for, where the value exceeds Rs.50,000/-, proper stamp duty is Rs.100/.

¶19

It is not in dispute that the agreement of sale has been executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper. Therefore, there is no need to pay any stamp duty and penalty. Hence, the impugned order with regard to the payment of stamp duty and penalty is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

_______________ K.C. BHANU, J

¶21

February 05, 2010 MD

Ailineni Narender Rao v. Gattu Maruthi , Gattu Maruthi Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ailineni Narender Rao v. Gattu Maruthi , Gattu Maruthi Rao

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

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Mandava Prasad

N. Sree Ram Chowdary Vs B. Hari Reddy

The State of a.P., Vs Kumbhampati Guru Prasada Rao

B.S.Farooq Ahmed, Vs State by Public Prosecutor

Kumba Siddaiah (C.P.No.9-83) Vs State of a.P.Rep. by its Public Prosecutor

The State of a.P.,rep.by its Public Prosecutor, Vs Pentyala Suneel Kumar