ORDER : 1. C.R.P. No. 728 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 05-03-2018 in O.S. No. 286 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. C.R.P. No. 251 of 2023 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 23-11-2022 in I.A. No 359 of 2018 in O.S. No. 286 of 2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. 2. Since the petitions are interconnected and arise out of the same suit, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. 4. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 26.04.2010 and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. 5. The case of the plaintiff is briefly that the 1st defendant is the father of the defendants no. 3 and 4. The 2nd defendant is the daughter-in-law of the 1st defendant i.e. wife of 1st defendant’s eldest son late Ramesh. The plaintiff contended that the defendants no. 1 to 3 intended to sell the plaint schedule property to discharge their family debts and entered into the suit agreement of sale for a value of Rs.5,50,000/- out of which Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to Samudrala Gangadhar, S/o Madhusudana Rao to discharge his debt due from the defendants no. 1 to 3 and further a sum of Rs.18,000/- was paid to one Boilla Lakshmi Narayana to discharge his debt incurred by the 1st defendant for his family necessities and additional amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was received by the 2nd defendant and thus the balance amount payable is only Rs.32,000/-. The plaintiff further stated that the defendants have to execute a registered sale deed and confirm the plaintiff’s possession over the plaint schedule property which is in occupation of the property as a tenant, however as they did not do so, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 13.02.2014 to the defendants no. The plaintiff further stated that the defendants have to execute a registered sale deed and confirm the plaintiff’s possession over the plaint schedule property which is in occupation of the property as a tenant, however as they did not do so, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 13.02.2014 to the defendants no. 1 to 3 upon issuing of which, the 1st defendant, along with 4th defendant to give shelter to the 1st defendant as he is a sick person and the other defendants also requested the plaintiff to provide accommodation to the 1st defendant and accordingly, on the advice of the village elders also, the schedule property was allowed to be occupied by the defendants for accommodation of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff further stated that due to change in the politics after elections held recently before the suit the defendants were influenced by the politicians and got issued a reply notice and when the plaintiff questioned the same, the defendants replied that they were going to vacate the property and executed a registered sale deed after completion of MPTC and ZPTC elections, but after completion of the elections, due to political differences, the defendants were influenced to create spurious and nominal document and further politicians are planning to get a complaint lodged to the police against the plaintiff through the defendants to harass the plaintiff at the instance of the 4th defendant, who played prominent role after giving notices. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff stated to have filed the suit. 6. Written statement was filed only by the 4th defendant denying the pleadings in the plaint and further stating that the 1st defendant executed a Will in favour of the 4th defendant bequeathing the plaint schedule property in his favour and after the death of the 1st defendant, the 4th defendant got the possession and enjoyment thereof. It is specifically denied that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the plaint schedule property at any time. 7. 1st and 3rd defendants died and 2nd defendant remained ex-parte. 8. On 05.03.2018, the trial Court directed the sale agreement dated 02.04.2010 to be sent to the District Registrar for impounding by collecting stamp duty and penalty as it is a possessory agreement of sale. 7. 1st and 3rd defendants died and 2nd defendant remained ex-parte. 8. On 05.03.2018, the trial Court directed the sale agreement dated 02.04.2010 to be sent to the District Registrar for impounding by collecting stamp duty and penalty as it is a possessory agreement of sale. I.A. No. 359 of 2018 was filed under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 05.03.2018 stating that there is no necessity to direct the District Registrar to impound the document for paying stamp duty and penalty. According to the petitioner, his specific case is that he is in occupation of the plaint schedule property as a tenant and holding possession as such and subsequently purchased the property under the agreement of sale and, therefore, no stamp duty and penalty is required, merely because subsequently possession was given to the 1st defendant under the circumstances stated in the suit. 9. Counters of the contesting respondents were not filed despite granting abundant opportunity for more than 3 ½ years, as per the observation of the trial Court, and therefore, the trail Court treated that they did not have counter. It is further recorded by the trail Court that since as on 05.03.2018, the 3rd defendant was alive and respondents no. 6 and 7 were not parties to the suit, there is no necessity to issue notices to respondents no. 6 and 7. 10. On perusal of the material on record, the trail Court dismissed the petition as the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 05.03.2018 by filing a revision against the same. As such, CRP No. 251 of 2023 is filed. 11. Aggrieved by the order dismissing I.A. No. 359 of 2018 and CRP No. 728 of 2023 was filed challenging the docket order dated 05.03.2018 in O.S. No. 286 of 2014. 12. R.1, 3, 5, 6 died. Notice sent to R.2 is served. Notice sent to R.4 is returned unserved vide postal endorsement ‘addressee not in village’. Notice sent to R.7 is returned unserved vide postal endorsement ‘unclaimed’. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. As rightly held by the trail Court, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot ask the trial Court to set aside the order dated 05.03.2018 by the same Court and the remedy available is to challenge the same in revision. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed in I.A. No. 359 of 2018. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. As rightly held by the trail Court, the petitioner/plaintiff cannot ask the trial Court to set aside the order dated 05.03.2018 by the same Court and the remedy available is to challenge the same in revision. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed in I.A. No. 359 of 2018. Accordingly, CRP No. 251 of 2023 is liable to be dismissed as there is no merit. 15. Insofar as CRP No. 728 of 2023 is concerned, the contention of the revision petitioner/plaintiff is that the agreement of sale in question does not require stamp duty nor is liable for payment of any penalty, since the plaintiff was in possession of the property under the agreement as a tenant and possession was not delivered by virtue of the agreement and later the suit is filed for recovery of possession. It is further contended that since the suit is filed for specific performance of the very same agreement of sale, though it is not registered, it is admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act. 16. A perusal of the agreement of sale shows the recitals that the schedule property therein was in occupation of the plaintiff as a tenant and further that the possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiff on the date of the agreement and thereafter the plaintiff has absolute rights over the property and the executants undertook to register a sale deed as and when the plaintiff requests. 17. For the purpose of admissibility of a document, the contents of the document and the position as on the date of the document have to be taken into account. Since the plaintiff contended that he was dispossessed subsequently, merely because the suit is filed not only for specific performance but the recovery of possession, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of examining whether the document requires registration as well as stamp duty on par with an agreement of sale with possession. 18. Insofar as registration is concerned, though the agreement of sale with or without possession requires registration, since the suit is filed for specific performance, by virtue of exception under Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document can be received in evidence. 18. Insofar as registration is concerned, though the agreement of sale with or without possession requires registration, since the suit is filed for specific performance, by virtue of exception under Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document can be received in evidence. However, the requirement under the stamp Act, unless complied duly, the document cannot be received in evidence for proof of either the main transaction or collateral transaction which does not require registration. 19. But, the stamp duty required for a mere agreement of sale defers from the agreement of sale with possession. Stamp duty payable on agreement or memorandum of an agreement not otherwise provided is dealt by Article 6 of Schedule I-A. However, the explanation I to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of Stamp Act has specifically dealt with agreement of sale followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of property: “47-A. Sale as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882: (a)........... (b)........... (c)........... (d)........... 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 be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed.” Explanation-II: ...........” Explanation I of 47-A has come into force w.e.f. 16.08.1996 by Act No. 17 of 1986 passed on 27.07.1986 in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The agreement of sale filed in the suit was allegedly executed on 19.09.2001. Therefore, whether it requires stamp duty in the light of Explanation-I noted above shall be examined. 20. Now, the question is whether an intending purchaser under an agreement of sale, who is already in possession of the property as a tenant requires to pay stamp duty on agreement of sale with possession. 21. At this juncture, it apt to note the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma, 1999 (6) ALD 160 (DB) wherein, on reference, a decision was rendered on the question about interpretation of the expression “followed by or evidencing delivery of possession” found in Article 47A of the Act. 21. At this juncture, it apt to note the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma, 1999 (6) ALD 160 (DB) wherein, on reference, a decision was rendered on the question about interpretation of the expression “followed by or evidencing delivery of possession” found in Article 47A of the Act. It is held that in case of ‘followed by delivery’ possession cannot be disjuncted from the basic source i.e. agreement to sell and in case of ‘evidencing delivery’ of possession, if the document contains evidence of delivery of possession by a recital in that behalf, that is sufficient and such delivery of possession can be prior to the date of agreement and need not be under the agreement and if the agreement records the fact that the possession was delivered earlier, it falls within the second limb of the explanation. In the said case, the High Court rejected the argument that simply because one continued to remain in possession, though in a different capacity, there is non-delivery of possession. It is specifically observed that a symbolic delivery may also amount to actual delivery in given circumstances. 22. In the present case, the petitioner has not contended that he continued to be tenant after the agreement and thereby his possession of the property on and after the date of the agreement is permissive by virtue of the agreement and not in the capacity as a tenant or a owner. There is a specific recital in the agreement that the schedule property was delivered to him on that date. Therefore, it makes it clear that there is change in the status of the plaintiff in relation to the property before the agreement and from the date of the agreement. The delivery of the property may be constructive since the plaintiff was already in occupation, but the nature of the possession from the date of the agreement is by virtue of the agreement. Even if the case of the plaintiff that he was subsequently dispossessed is accepted for the sake of argument, as on the date of the agreement since he got the possession of the property only by virtue of the agreement, the same requires stamp duty as an agreement of sale with possession. 23. Even if the case of the plaintiff that he was subsequently dispossessed is accepted for the sake of argument, as on the date of the agreement since he got the possession of the property only by virtue of the agreement, the same requires stamp duty as an agreement of sale with possession. 23. Therefore, the trail Court has not committed any error by passing the order dated 05.03.2018 and accordingly there is no merit in Revision Petition No. 728 of 2023. 24. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. 25. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.