This judgment dismisses a Civil Revision Petition challenging a lower court's order that upheld the admissibility of an unstamped agreement of sale in a specific performance suit, relying on settled stamp duty law regarding possession.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed; No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4896 OF 2009
DATE: 25.03.2010
Between:
Mr.P.Sreedhar Reddy and others
..... PETITIONERS
AND
Mr. K.Vajrabhaskar Reddy and others
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri R.Raghunandan
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Katakam Suneel Babu
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4896 OF 2009
O R D E R :
The revision petitioners are the defendants 3 to 5 in O.S.No.10 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit for specific performance of contract directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed dated 19.01.2007 and deliver possession of the plaint schedule property. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. During the course of the evidence, the plaintiff filed his affidavit in chief examination and while it was coming up for his cross objection, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants 1 to 5 as to the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 19.01.2007, on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. The said objection was overruled by the Court below by order dated 17.08.2009 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the defendants 3 to 5.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
The material available on record shows that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract and also for delivery of possession. The recitals of suit agreement dated 19.01.2007 only speaks about the total sale consideration agreed upon was Rs.19,12,000/- and that a sum of Rs.60,000/towards advance sale consideration was received by the defendants 1 and 2 from the plaintiff. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 2 had subsequently sold the property in question to the defendants 3 to 5 and executed a nominal sale deed dated 23.02.2007. Accordingly, he sought specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.01.2007 as well as recovery of possession of the suit property.
Thus, it is clear that the suit agreement of sale was without possession.
Admittedly, the agreement was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.100/-. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that inasmuch as the suit agreement falls under Article 6(B) of schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, unless the stamp duty is paid as specified in column 2 of Article 6(B), the document is inadmissible in evidence.
Having considered an identical question this Court in PECHITTI RAMAKRISHNA v. NEKKANTI VENKATA MANOHARA RA O[1] held that Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by Andhra Pradesh Act 21 of 1995 (for short ‘the Act’) shall be applicable only in such specified cases and the same cannot override the general provision of Article 6(A) of the Act. The said decision was subsequently approved by a Division Bench in SARANAM PEDA APPAIAH v. S.NARASIMHA REDDY[2] .
In the light of the settled law, the Court below had rightly held that as the possession was not delivered to the plaintiff, the suit agreement did not require the stamp duty under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A. The order under Revision is in accordance with law and therefore, warrants no interference by this Court.
Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
_____________ Date: 25.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J.
Ivd
[1] 2004 (1) ALD 557 [2] 2004(6) ALT 237
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Revision Petition filed by defendants 3 to 5 against the order overruling their objection that the agreement of sale was insufficiently stamped warrants interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PECHITTI RAMAKRISHNA v. NEKKANTI VENKATA MANOHARA RAOFollowed¶19
2004 (1) ALD 557
SARANAM PEDA APPAIAH v. S.NARASIMHA REDDYAffirmed¶19
2004(6) ALT 237
Mr. P.Sreedhar Reddy and others
Mr. K.Vajrabhaskar Reddy and others
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
