Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1205 (AP)

K. P. Sreenivasa Reddy v. S. Thirupal Reddy

2025-11-25

B.S.BHANUMATHI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 15.07.2025, dismissing I.A.No.56 of 2025 in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, filed by the defendant under Order XIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. read with Sections 35 & 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to demark exhibit A1, suit agreement of sale, dated 01.02.2013. 2. The case of the petitioner/defendant, in brief, is as follows: The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit against the revision petitioner/defendant seeking specific performance of Ex.A1, suit agreement to sell, dated 01.02.2013, executed by the defendant. During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had taken possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 and thus, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The agreement of sale was executed on stamp papers worth Rs.100/- and such a document cannot be admitted in evidence without collecting stamp duty and penalty by impounding the document. An agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession of the property is chargeable. As per the explanation-1 to Article 47-A of the Schedule –I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Ex.A1 needs to be stamped as a regular sale deed. Since Ex.A1 is not duly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence. It is just and necessary to order demarking of Ex.A1, suit agreement of sale, as it is unregistered and insufficiently stamped. 3. The respondent No.2 filed a counter opposing the petition and stating that possession was not delivered under the agreement of sale; that the affidavit filed by way of chief examination is totally silent as to delivery of possession of the schedule property; that the petitioner/defendant gave permission to develop the land and the same cannot be said to be delivery of possession; that the agreement of sale was marked as Ex.A1 on 06.08.2018 and so the petitioner cannot now raise objection as regards its admissibility; that as the objection was not raised at the time of marking, the petitioner waived his right to object; that demarking Ex.A1 is not permissible; and that the petition is filed only to delay the proceedings. 4. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that mere condition that the plaintiff can go for conversion of the land and lay layout with proper approval for making house plots cannot be considered as conveying absolute possession and the suit agreement of sale is not liable to be impounded with stamp duty and penalty. 5. Aggrieved thereby, this revision was preferred by the defendant. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Vanapalli Jayalaxmi @ Venkata Jayalaxmi Vs. A. Kondalarao and others , 2014 (1) ALT 356 (S.B.) 7. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition as there was no actual delivery of the property giving effective possession under the agreement of sale. In this regard, he referred to the decision of this High Court in Nellore Sujanamma Vs. Desireddy Somasekhar Reddy , 2023 (4) ALT 384 , wherein, under the circumstances in the present case similar to the facts in that case, it was held that there was no actual delivery of possession under the agreement of sale and that the delivery was only for the purpose of division of property into plots while retaining the actual possession by the vendor. 8. Article 47-A of Schedule- IA of the Stamp Act states as follows: “47-A. Sale as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — (a) in respect of property situated in any local area comprised in a Municipal Corporation— (i) where the amount or value of the consideration for such sale as set forth in the instrument or the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the sale whichever is higher but does not exceed Rs. 1,000/-. Eight rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof. (ii) where it exceeds Rs. 1,000/-. The same duty as under Clause (i) for the first Rs. 1,000/- and for every Rs. 500/- or part thereof in excess of Rs. 1,000 forty rupees. (b) in respect of property situated in any local area comprised in the Selection Grade or in Special Grade Municipality,— (i) where the amount or value of the consideration for such sale as set forth in the instrument or the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the sale whichever is higher but does not exceed Rs. 1,000/-. seven rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof. (ii) where it exceeds Rs. 1,000/-. The same duty as under Clause (i) for the first Rs. 1,000 and for every Rs. 500/- or part thereof in excess of Rs.1,000 Thirty-five rupees. (c) where the property is situated in any area other than those mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b)— (i) where the amount or value of the consideration for such sales as set forth in the instrument or the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the sale, whichever is higher but does not exceed Rs. 1,000/-. Six rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof. (ii) where it exceeds Rs. 1,000/-. The same duty as under Clause (i) for the first Rs. 1,000/- and for every Rs. 500/- or part thereof in excess of Rs. 1,000 thirty rupees. (d) if relating to a multi-unit house or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or part of such structure to which the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Apartments (promotion of Construction and Ownership)Act, 1987, apply: (i) where the value does not exceed Rs. 2,00,000/- Rupees Twelve thousand. (ii) where it exceeds Rs. 2,00,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 3,50,000/-. Rupees Twelve thousand plus 4% on the value above Rs. 2,00,000/- (iii) where it exceeds Rs. 3,50,000/- but does not exceed Rs. 7,00,000/- Rupees Eighteen thousand plus 6% on the value above Rs. 3,50,000/- (iv) where it exceeds Rs. 7,00,000/- Rupees Thirty-nine thousand plus 8% on the value above Rs. 7,00,000/- 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 For the purposes of Clause (d), (i) “unit” includes a flat, apartment, tenement, portion or semi-finished part of such structure; and (ii) “value” means the consideration or value of the apartment/flat/portion or semi-finished part of such structure of multistoried building as declared in the document by the seller and builder or market value whichever is higher.” 9. Explanation-II For the purposes of Clause (d), (i) “unit” includes a flat, apartment, tenement, portion or semi-finished part of such structure; and (ii) “value” means the consideration or value of the apartment/flat/portion or semi-finished part of such structure of multistoried building as declared in the document by the seller and builder or market value whichever is higher.” 9. In Vanapalli Jayalaxmi @ Venkata Jayalaxmi (supra), it was held at paragraph No.24 as follows: “.. .. .. … 18. From a combined reading of the judgments referred to above, in conjunction with proviso to Section-49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, broadly the following would emerge: (1). An unstamped or insufficiently stamped document is inadmissible in evidence. (2). As per the proviso to Section-49 of the Indian Registration Act, an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered can be received as evidence either in cases referred to therein or to prove any collateral transaction. (3). If an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document coupled with the infirmity of being unregistered can be received as evidence for a collateral purpose, provided, the first defect under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is corrected. In other words, an unstamped or insufficiently stamped document after duly impounded as prescribed under Section-33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 can be relied in evidence for collateral purpose. (Emphasis supplied) In that case, the agreement of sale, dated 29.02.1996, was held to be covered by the explanation 1 of Article 47-A of the Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act basing on the recitals therein. 10. In the case of Nellore Sujanamma (2 nd supra), the agreement of sale, dated 22.01.2011, in question reads as follows: 11. In the case on hand, similar to the case in Nellore Sujanamma (2 nd supra), the recitals in the agreement read as follows: 12. In the light of the above cited decision in the case of Nellore Sujanamma (2 nd supra), this Court is of the view that in the present case also, there is no effective delivery of possession given by the vendor to the vendee. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition. 13. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.