Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 573 (AP)

Purini Krishnaiah v. Nuvvuru Venkata Ramanaiah

2005-06-30

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2005
( 1 ) THESE two revisions are interrelated to each other. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 30 of 1999, in the Court of Principal Senior Civil judge, Nellore, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 9-2-1995. The trial of the suit commenced, and the agreement of sale was marked as Ex. A-1. At a large stage, the petitioner came forward with a plea that in continuation of Ex. A-1; another agreement dated 18-10-1995, was executed by the respondent, slightly enhancing the consideration. He sought to introduce the same into the suit. At the request of the petitioner, the trial Court sent that document, for impounding, to the Revenue Divisional officer (RDO), Nellore. It is stated that the rdo determined the deficit stamp duty and penalty, payable thereon at Rs. 24,649/- and rs. 98,596/- respectively. Feeling aggrieved by this determination, the petitioner filed w. P. No. 14277 of 2001. The same is pending before this Court. ( 3 ) AT a subsequent stage, the petitioner approached the RDO, with an application, stating that earlier order was passed without hearing him, and that the matter be determined afresh. It is represented that the RDO passed an order dated 23-2-2004, taking the view that the document, dated 18-10-1995, does not require any further stamp duty, since Ex. A-1 was already properly stamped. On the strength of this order, the petitioner filed i. A. No. 440 of 2004, under Section 151 c. P. C. , to reopen the evidence, and LA. No. 441 of 2004 to recall PW. 1, for being examined afresh. The Trial Court rejected the applications, through its orders dated 27- 7-2004. Hence, these two revisions. ( 4 ) SRI AT. Someswara Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the observation of the Trial Court that the agreement dated 18-10-1995 is independent of Ex. A-1, cannot be sustained. He contends that except that the consideration was enhanced slightly, the subject-matter and parties in both the documents are same. It is also his case that the Trial Court played the role of an appellate authority, on the order dated 23-2-2004, passed by the rdo, and that the same cannot be countenanced. A-1, cannot be sustained. He contends that except that the consideration was enhanced slightly, the subject-matter and parties in both the documents are same. It is also his case that the Trial Court played the role of an appellate authority, on the order dated 23-2-2004, passed by the rdo, and that the same cannot be countenanced. He lastly submits that in the matter of determination of deficit stamp duty, or penalty, payable thereon, the ultimate authority is the RDO, and the Court has no option except to accept it. ( 5 ) SRI M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the agreement, dated 18-10-1995, refers to an independent transaction, and has nothing to do with ex. A-1. He contends that there is not even a reference to Ex. A-1 in the other document, and that there is substantial variation as to the consideration, as well as description of the property. As regards the power of rdo, the learned Counsel submits that once the Court has sent a document for impounding and the RDO had exercised such power, it was not open to the petitioner to annul the order, or to declare that the document does not need any impounding. Such a course, learned Counsel submits, amounts to nullifying the order of the trial Court, sending the document for impounding, that too, at the instance of the petitioner himself. He draws the attention of this Court to an order passed in W. P. M. P. No. 17854 of 2001 in W. P. No. 14277 of 2001, which is to the effect that the order of the RDO, determining the deficit stamp duty and penalty, does not call for any interference. ( 6 ) THE trial of the suit, filed by the petitioner for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, commenced. The agreement, dated 9-2-1995, which constituted the basis, was already taken on record as Ex. A-1. Subsequently, the petitioner pleaded that there is renovation of contract, through another agreement dated 18-10-1995, and that the same needs to be taken on record. Petitioner himself felt that the stamp duty paid on the agreement, dated 18-10-1995, is insufficient and sought for impounding it. Acceding to the request, the Trial Court sent the document to the RDO, for impounding. Subsequently, the petitioner pleaded that there is renovation of contract, through another agreement dated 18-10-1995, and that the same needs to be taken on record. Petitioner himself felt that the stamp duty paid on the agreement, dated 18-10-1995, is insufficient and sought for impounding it. Acceding to the request, the Trial Court sent the document to the RDO, for impounding. It resulted in an order of determination, to the effect that deficit stamp duty of rs. 24,649/- and penalty of Rs. 98,596/- is payable thereon. ( 7 ) FEELING aggrieved by such a determination, petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court and the same is pending. In the ordinary course of things, the petitioner ought to have awaited the adjudication by this Court. However, he has chosen to approach the RDO, who was accommodative enough, to declare that neither any deficit stamp duty, nor any penalty, is payable thereon. Naturally, being encouraged by this development, the petitioner approached the Trial Court to reopen the evidence, and to recall PW. 1 to introduce this document. ( 8 ) THE Trial Court took exception to the procedure adopted by the RDO. The question as to whether the RDO had the power to review his own order, particularly, when the Act does not confer any such power, is beside the point, at least for the present. The fact remains that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the Court sent the document to the RDO for impounding. It does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to tell the RDO that the document did not warrant payment of deficit stamp duty or penalty. If this plea is open to the petitioner, he can be said to have misled the Court, on earlier occasion. ( 9 ) FURTHER, whatever may be the power of the jurisdiction of the RDO under the Indian Stamp Act, while dealing with the document, which came to be presented before him under Section 33, once a document was referred to him by a Court, he cannot take the view that the document does not require any impounding, or collection of deficit Court fee, at all. Such a course would amount to sitting in appeal, against the order of the Court, which has sent the document. It was in this context that the trial Court took exception to the course adopted by the RDO. Such a course would amount to sitting in appeal, against the order of the Court, which has sent the document. It was in this context that the trial Court took exception to the course adopted by the RDO. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioner to take further steps, in accordance with law.