ORDER : 1. 1st Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 28.11.2022 in O.S. No. 101 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. 2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 101 of 2009 against the defendants seeking specific performance of possessory sale agreements dated 08.11.1996, 12.02.1997, 29.01.1997, 28.09.1996, 22.12.1996, 14.12.1996, 24.11.1996, 24.11.1996, 24.11.1996, 14.12.1996, 30.10.1996, 30.10.1996, 15.11.1996, 03.01.1996, 24.10.1996, 29.01.1997 and 10.11.1996 respectively etc. 3. Defendants by filing written statement are contesting the suit. 4. PW-1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with possessory agreement of sale dated 08.11.1996. Trial Court by docket order dated 29.11.2022 came to the conclusion that document dated 08.11.1996 is liable for stamp duty and penalty and hence, declined to receive the same. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed. 5. Heard Paladugu Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that sale agreement is in dispute and hence, stamp duty need not be paid. He would also submit that suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale date 08.11.1996 and hence the agreement of sale can be received for collateral purpose. He would further submit that though possession was delivered under the agreement of sale dated 8-11-1996, according to learned counsel the document can be treated as simple agreement and necessary stamp duty till be paid after decree when the document is presented before the Sub Registrar for registration. Thus, he would contend that unless the suit is decreed, no stamp duty need be paid on the document dated 08.11.1996. 7. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the document dated 08.11.1996 requires stamp duty under Schedule I-A of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899? 8. The document dated 08.11.1996, as per the nomenclature, possessory agreement of sale. Recitals in the document, disclose that schedule property is handed over on the date of execution of agreement i.e. 08.11.1996. The agreement dated 08.11.1996 was scribed on stamp paper worth Rs. 101/-. Whether the agreement of sale with possession requires stamp duty and if so what the stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act is to be considered. 9. The agreement dated 08.11.1996 was scribed on stamp paper worth Rs. 101/-. Whether the agreement of sale with possession requires stamp duty and if so what the stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act is to be considered. 9. It is appropriate to extract the explanation to Schedule IA of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as follows: “Explanation-I: An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a “sale” under this article: Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause (B) of Article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed.” 10. The Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Ratnamala vs. G. Rudramma, AIR 2000 AP 167 : 1999 (6) ALT 59 while answering reference held thus: “9. While considering the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, it has to be borne in mind that the said Act being a fiscal statute, plain language of the section as per its natural meaning is the true guide. No inferences, analogies or any presumptions can have any place. As the incidence of duty is on the execution of the deed, regard must, therefore, be had only to the terms of the document. Thus the main question that falls for consideration is the interpretation of the expressions “followed by or evidencing delivery of possession.” These expressions cannot be read in isolation and one has to find the true meaning by reading the entire Explanation and more so in conjunction with the earlier expression i.e. “agreement.” Even if these two expressions are looked independently, it means an agreement to sell followed by delivery of possession and an agreement to sell evidencing delivery of possession. In the first case, i.e. “followed by delivery” possession cannot be disjuncted from the basic source i.e. agreement to sell. Therefore, the expression followed by delivery of possession should have a direct nexus to the agreement and should be read in juxtaposition to the word 'agreement' and it cannot be independent or outside the agreement. In the first case, i.e. “followed by delivery” possession cannot be disjuncted from the basic source i.e. agreement to sell. Therefore, the expression followed by delivery of possession should have a direct nexus to the agreement and should be read in juxtaposition to the word 'agreement' and it cannot be independent or outside the agreement. Therefore, the delivery of possession should follow the agreement i.e. through the agreement. It takes in its sweep the recital in the agreement itself that delivery of possession is being handed over. It will also cover cases of delivery of possession contemporaneous with the execution of agreement, even if there is no specific recital in the agreement. In other words, the delivery of possession should be intimately and inextricably connected with the agreement. And in the second type, i.e. agreements evidencing delivery of possession, if the document contains evidence of delivery of possession by a recital in that behalf, that is sufficient. Such delivery of possession can be prior to the date of agreement and need not be under the agreement. If the Agreement records the fact that the possession was delivered earlier and such recital serves as evidence of delivery of possession, though prior to the Agreement, it falls under the second limb. Such delivery of possession can be prior to the date of agreement and need not be under the agreement. If the Agreement records the fact that the possession was delivered earlier and such recital serves as evidence of delivery of possession, though prior to the Agreement, it falls under the second limb. Therefore, on a proper interpretation of the said expressions, it would follow that an agreement containing specific recital of delivery of possession or indicating delivery of possession even in the past is liable for stamp duty as a 'sale' under the said Explanation.” The Division Bench also placed reliance on Veena Hasmukh Jain vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1999 SC 807 : (1999) 5 SCC 725 wherein the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 were considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and observed thus: “Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act reads as follows: Explanation I: For the purposes of this Article, where in the case of agreement to sell an Immovable property, the possession of any Immovable property is transferred to the purchaser before the execution, or at the time of execution, or after the execution of such agreement without executing the conveyance in respect thereof, then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable accordingly.” Interpreting the said explanation, it was held: “The duty in respect of an agreement covered by the Explanation is leviable as if it is a conveyance. The conditions to be fulfilled are if there is an agreement to sell Immovable property and possession of such property is transferred to the purchaser before the execution or at the time of execution or subsequently without executing any conveyance in respect thereof, such an agreement to sell is deemed to be a “conveyance.” In the event a conveyance is executed in pursuance of such agreement subsequently, the stamp duty already paid and recovered on the agreement of sale which is deemed to a conveyance shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the conveyance. Now, in the present case, the agreement entered into clearly provides for sale of an Immovable property and there is also a specific time within which possession has to be delivered. Now, in the present case, the agreement entered into clearly provides for sale of an Immovable property and there is also a specific time within which possession has to be delivered. Therefore, the document in question clearly falls within the scope of the Explanation I. It is open for the Legislature to levy duty on different kinds of agreement in different rates. If the Legislature thought that it would be appropriate to collect duty at the stage of agreement itself if it fulfills certain conditions instead of postponing the collection of such duty till the completion of the transaction by execution of conveyance deed inasmuch as all substantial conditions of a conveyance have already been fulfilled such as by passing of a consideration and delivery of possession of the property and what remained to be done is a mere formality of execution of a sale deed, it would be necessary to collect duty at a later stage itself though right, title and interest may not have passed as such. Still by reason of the fact that under the terms of the agreement there is an intention of sale and possession of the property has also been delivered, it is certainly open to the State to charge such instruments at a particular rate which is akin to a conveyance and that it exactly what has been done in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be said that levy of duty is not upon the instrument but on the transaction.” 11. Eventually, the Division Bench concluded that delivery of possession before the execution or at the time of execution or after the execution of an agreement and such agreements are deemed to be conveyances for the purpose of imposing stamp duty. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Sri Lakshmi Housing Enterprises Rep. by GPA vs. Haji Begum and Others, 2010 (6) ALT 24 . In the said case, there is no recital in the agreement about delivery of possession. Hence, the Court came to the conclusion that no stamp duty need be paid. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for petitioner in E. Padma Rao @ Vadla Padma Rao and Others vs. Vijay Kumar and Another, 2013 (2) ALT 413 will not come to the aid of petitioner, as the facts therein are different from the facts of the case on hand. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for petitioner in E. Padma Rao @ Vadla Padma Rao and Others vs. Vijay Kumar and Another, 2013 (2) ALT 413 will not come to the aid of petitioner, as the facts therein are different from the facts of the case on hand. In fact, learned single Judge observed thus: “The possession which is delivered for the limited purpose of dividing the land into plots, cannot be treated as the one that enables the party to enjoy the property without any fetters. When the factum of delivery of possession has the effect of elevating agreement of sale covered by Article-6 of the Schedule IA of the Act, to the level or status of a sale deed, covered by Article 47-A of the Act, it cannot be a mere permission to enter the land to divide it into plots.” 13. As discussed supra, in the case on hand, there is specific recital with regard to delivery of property under agreement of sale dated 08.11.1996. While deciding the question relating to payment of stamp duty and penalty on a particular document, the recitals of the document may have to be looked into and not the pleadings of the respective parties. The pleadings of the parties may be in deviation of the document in question. The levy of the stamp duty and penalty is always in relation to the document which is to be marked before the Court and such levy cannot depend upon the pleadings of the parties. Unless the document is sufficiently stamped it cannot be marked even for collateral purpose. Apart from that, in the case on hand, plaintiff filed suit seeking specific performance on the basis of possessory agreement of sale. Thus, the argument of learned counsel that no stamp duty need be paid and the document can be marked for collateral purpose and the stamp duty will be paid after the decree etc. falls to ground. 14. In view of specific recital in the agreement of sale dated 08.11.1996 with regard to delivery of property, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at admission stage. No costs. 16. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.