B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8-2-2000 passed in O. S. No. 313 of 1998 on the file of principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge sustained the objection raised by the respondent/defendant in respect of the disputed document dated 19-11 -1993 and endorsement thereon dated 25-9-1995 and held that the document can be admitted in evidence on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty and that the disputed document is sale and it comes within the purview of explanation (1) of Article 47-A Indian Stamp Act.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief giving raise to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff are as follows: the respondent/defendant is the owner of the suit schedule land. The plaintiff filed O. S. No. 313/98 alleging that the respondent/defendant executed agreement of sale dated 19-11-1993 agreeing to sell the suit land for Rs. 36,400/- and received rs. 29,400/- as advance sale consideration on the date of agreement itself and that he paid the balance sale consideration of rs. 7,000/- on 25-9-1995 and got the payment endorsed on the agreement of sale. Since the respondent/ defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The respondent/ defendant disputed the agreement of sale. It is the case of respondent/defendant that the husband of the plaintiff took the suit land on lease in the year 1993 on a makta of 15 bags of paddy per year and that the plaintiff to knock away the property fabricated the agreement of sale and filed the suit

( 3 ) WHEN the agreement of sale is sought to be marked through the evidence of p. W. I, the respondent/defendant raised objection that the agreement of sale is a deed of conveyance and it requires stamp duty under explanation (1) to Article 47-A of the Stamp Act. On hearing the Counsel for both the parties, the learned Principal junior Civil Judge held that the suit agreement is a conveyance deed and it comes within the ambit of explanation (1) to Article 47-A of Stamp Act and it cannot be admitted in evidence till deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up before justice P. S. Narayana, a question arose, whether Article 47-A as amended by A. P. Act 21/98 is retrospective or prospective and whether the said amendment Act is applicable even when the documents came into existence prior to the Act. His Lordship after referring decisions of this Court in mekapathula Linga Reddy v. Durgempudi gangi Reddy and another, 1995 (1) ALT 828 and Ramachandra Rao v. Venkata ramana, 1996 (3) ALT 725, felt that an authoritative pronouncement is required by a Division Bench on the following issues: (1) Whether Article 47-A as amended by a. P. Act No. 21/95 is retrospective or prospective and whether the said amending Act is applicable even to the documents which came into existence prior to the Act? (2) What will be the effect of the amended provisions if any endorsements relating to delivery of possession are made in the principal documents which are subsequent to the said Act coming into force?when the matter came up before a division Bench of this Court, it was represented that explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule-1 (A) of the Stamp Act, 1899 was introduced by way of Amendment act No. 17/86 to the Stamp Act of 1899 with effect from 16. 8. 1996. In view of the representation, the Division Bench opined that the reference does not survive to be answered as the issue does not call for any opinion and accordingly directed the Registry to place the matter before the single Judge for hearing on merits. Thus, the matter came up before me for final hearing.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Court below erred in holding that the agreement dated 19-11-1993 is a deed of conveyance within the purview of Schedul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document