Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1460 (AP)

Golla Amaravathi v. Golla Bhaskara Naidu

2001-11-15

B.SRI ATCHUTHANANDA SWAMY

body2001
ORDER : Aggrieved by the orders of theI Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No. 622 of 2001 in O.S.No. 252 of 1995, dated 25-7-2001, dismissing the application to call for the document Ex.A-7, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, without impounding the same, to meet the ends of justice and also to avoid delay, the present Revision Petition is filed 2. The case of the petitioner herein is that she purchased the suit schedule property, initially, under an agreement of sale Ex.No.A-7, dated 29-6-1989 and later obtained regular sale deed on 19-1-1995. Subsequently, the 1st respondent seemed to have filed a petition in the Insolvency Court, wherein the property purchased by her was also shown as owned by him. Hence she filed O.S.No. 252 of 1995, seeking permanent injunction not to take possession of the plaint schedule properties. During the trial, having marked the sale deed, she also tried to mark the Ex.A-7 (agreement of sale) to prove that she is in possession of the property since the year 1989 and ather instance, the Court impoundedthe document and levied a penalty of Rs.7,111/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred eleven only). But the petitioner having not been satisfied with the stamp duty and penalty levied by the Court, requested the Court to refer the document to the Collector, i.e., R.D.O., Chittoor in the instant case, for impounding the document under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. The R.D.O., Chittoor valued the document as per the prevailing market value and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 23,004/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand and four only), for impounding the document. The petitioner filed an application to recall the document from the R.D.O., Chittoor, without impounding the same, and it was dismissed. 2. This issue was squarely covered by two judgments of this Court. In S. Venkataramaiah v. Y. Kripavatamma and others : 1967 (2) ALT 8 (NRC), it was held that the certificate given by the Revenue Authorities is conclusive under Section 40 of the Act and binding on the Civil Court and prevails over its decision on a question of admissibility on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped. 4. In S. Venkataramaiah v. Y. Kripavatamma and others : 1967 (2) ALT 8 (NRC), it was held that the certificate given by the Revenue Authorities is conclusive under Section 40 of the Act and binding on the Civil Court and prevails over its decision on a question of admissibility on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped. 4. In the above case in an application filed by the tenant under Section 50(b) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the Court initially decided to impound the document and levy penalty without sending the same to the Collector, but subsequently, chose to send the document to the Revenue Authorities for a decision under Section 38(2) of the Act. In such circumstances, this Court held that the certificate issued by the Revenue Authorities had become final and conclusive and it was not open to the Civil Court to take a different view on the said question. 5. In Kripavatamma and others v. Narasimha Reddy : 1969 ILR (A.P.) 593 and another2this court held as follows: 'On the question whether the certificate given by the revenue authority under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899) is conclusive and binding under the Act and whether it binds the Civil Court on a question of inadmissibility on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped. Held that the certificate issued under clause (a) of sub-section (1) in respect of matters stated therein, viz. that the document is properly stamped, it has become final and it is not open to a civil Court to take a different view on that question.'- 6. Hence, in the instant case, the Court below rightly rejected the application andI am of the opinion that the orders of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No. 622 of 2001 in O.S.No. 252 of 1995, dated 25-7-2001, dismissing the application to call for the document Ex.A-7, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor without impounding the same, do not require interference from this Court. 7. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 8. 7. Accordingly, with the above observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 8. At this stage, the Counsel for the petitioner, brought to my notice that she filed a representation before the R.D.O., Chittoor, to levy the stamp duty and penalty on the real value of the property as on the date of purchase without reference to the market value as on the date when the application was submitted and the same is still pending. 9. If such a representation is pending with the R.D.O., Chittoor, as submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner now, the R.D.O., Chittoor, is directed to dispose of the same within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Till the above direction is complied with by the R.D.O., Chittoor, the Court below is directed not to proceed with the trial of the case.