Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 349 (AP)

Challa Rama Krishna Reddy v. Pulusu Peri Reddy

2012-03-28

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

body2012
Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order dated 24.03.2011 in O.S.No.182 of 2007 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. The respondent filed the above-mentioned suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.14,15,200/-with subsequent interest at 12% p.a. The suit is filed on the foot of a document dated 28.01.2006. The said document was un-registered bearing a stamp of Re.1/-. When the office has taken objection at the time of numbering, an undertaking was given by the counsel for the respondent that proper stamp duty will be paid at the time of marking the document in evidence. When the document was considered for admission in evidence, the lower Court has considered the office objection and rejected the same. It is held that the contents of the document would show that the defendant acknowledged the debt due to the plaintiff and agreed to discharge the debt in installments and that in case of his failure to do so, he would execute a sale deed in respect of the property covered by the document. The lower Court further held that the document contains two parts i.e., the first part of the document relates to acknowledging the debt due to the plaintiff and the second part relates to an undertaking to execute a sale deed and that since the suit is filed for recovery of money and not for specific performance, the first part of the document alone is relevant for consideration. Accordingly, the lower Court has admitted the document in evidence as acknowledgement of debt which is not liable for stamp duty and penalty. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the order of the lower Court reads as if the same was passed after hearing the counsel for both the parties, there was no opportunity for the counsel for the petitioner to advance his arguments and that in fact no arguments were advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the lower Court with reference to the recitals of the document in question. I have carefully considered the reasons given by the lower Court with reference to the recitals of the document in question. A close perusal of the recitals of the document would show that the petitioner has acknowledged the debt, that he has promised to pay the amount in installments, that there is an acknowledgment of his depositing the title deeds and that he has also undertaken to take back his original title deeds on repayment of the debt amount, failing which, he has promised to execute a registered document in favour of the respondent. It is trite that a document has to be read as a whole. It is not permissible for the plaintiff to ask the Court to consider one part of the document and ignore the other part. When a document, which answers the description of more than one instrument, is produced before the Court, the stamp duty is to be paid in terms of Section 6 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”) by charging the duty on the instrument for which highest of such duty is payable. In my opinion the lower Court has committed a serious error in considering only one part of the document ignoring the other parts thereof. Schedule 1A of the Act prescribes 25 paise as stamp for acknowledgment of a debt exceeding Rs.20/-. However, the proviso thereof excluded any acknowledgment which contains a promise to pay debt or any stipulation to pay interest or to deliver any goods or other property. The lower Court has evidently overlooked this provision in holding that the suit document is a mere acknowledgment. As noted above, it falls under more than one description and the same cannot certainly be treated as a mere acknowledgment, as it contains many promises as noted above, on account of which, it completely falls outside the scope of Clause 1 of Schedule 1A. Since the lower Court does not appear to have heard the petitioner’s counsel, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to it for re-consideration and taking a fresh decision as to the exact nature of the suit document. The payment of stamp duty and the requirement of registration would depend upon the finding rendered by the lower Court. Since the lower Court does not appear to have heard the petitioner’s counsel, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to it for re-consideration and taking a fresh decision as to the exact nature of the suit document. The payment of stamp duty and the requirement of registration would depend upon the finding rendered by the lower Court. For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.7072 and 7970 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous.