An agreement to sell does not convert a tenant's possession into vendor-vendee relationship without express surrender, thus no additional stamp duty is required under the A.P. Stamp Act.

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

Factual Background:

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent in the suit is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property admeasuring 955.11 square yards and bearing Door No.4-473, situated at Dowlaiswaram Village, Rajahmundry Rural, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant has been a tenant of the respondent for a long period and the suit schedule property has been in the appellant’s possession as a tenant for over fifty years.

2.1 On 14.10.2009, the appellant and respondent herein entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property, with the appellant agreeing to purchase the suit schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Only). An advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) is said to have been paid by the appellant to the respondent on 14.10.2009 i.e. the date of the agreement to sell. It was further agreed that the appellant would pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only) and that the respondent would execute a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property as and when called upon to do so.

2.2 Thereafter, in the year 2013, the appellant received summons in a suit filed by the respondent bearing O.S No.6/2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry seeking perpetual injunction and in R.C.C No.4/2013 on the file of the Rent Control-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram seeking eviction of the appellant (tenant) from the suit schedule property. The said proceeding was filed under Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, “A.P. Rent Act, 1960”).

2.3 On 08.04.2013, a legal notice was sent by the appellant to the respondent offering to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand) of the total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs) to the respondent and calling upon the respondent to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant with regard to the suit schedule property. On 04.05.2013, the respondent replied to the legal notice denying the existence of the agreement to sell and refusing to execute the sale deed.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the reply to his notice, the appellant preferred O.S. No.188/2013 before the Court of the V Addl. District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry (“Trial Court”, for short) seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2009 on the part of the respondent or, in the alternative, to direct the respondent to refund the advance amount of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Fifty Thousand) paid by the appellant along with interest from 14.10.2009, as well as seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. It was contended that the appellant had made several requests to the respondent and her husband, informing them of his willingness to pay the balance sale consideration but the same was of no avail.

2.5 Thereafter in the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement to sell, on 27.11.2015, the appellant as P.W. 1 filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief before the Trial Court in O.S. No.188/2013 along with the documents to be exhibited wherein Exhibit A-1 was the agreement to sell dated 14.10.2009. The respondent objected to the marking of Exhibit A-1 on the basis that the said agreement to sell was in fact a conveyance deed and thus the requisite stamp duty and penalty had to be paid by the appellant before the said document could be adduced as evidence. On 21.12.20