DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant in O. S. No. 11 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Asifabad filed this revision petition. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 2-7-1994 executed by the defendant in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff wanted to exhibit the said document dated 2-7-1994 as piece of evidence. The defendant objected for the marking of the document taking the contention that the said document is a sale deed and it requires to be stamped as a sale deed and the document is insufficiently stamped, and therefore, inadmissible in evidence. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by his order dated 29-9-1997, held that the document is only an agreement of sale and not sale deed, and therefore, it is not liable for further stamp duty. The document was executed on non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 100/ -. Questioning the order of the Senior Civil Judge, this revision petition is filed by the defendant.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this revision petition, the respondent-plaintiff died and his L. Rs. were brought on record.

( 3 ) THE question to be decided in the present revision petition is whether transaction covered by the document dated 2-7-1994 is to be treated as a sale for the purpose of levy and collection of stamp duty?

( 4 ) ARTICLE 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act deals with stamp duty payable on conveyance. During the year 1986, the State of Andhra Pradesh amended the said provision and inserted an explanation. As per that explanation, 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 and the instrument of sale in pursuance of such agreement subsequently executed shall be chargeable with a duty of rs. 5. / -.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner relied upon three decisions. The 1st decision in Mekapothula Linga Reddy v. D. Gangi Reddy and others, wherein it was held that as the object of introduction of explanation to Art. 47-A and proviso to art. 20 is to plug the loopholes in evasion of stamp duty by persons invoking the theory of part-performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, the word possession has to be interpreted as including possession pursuant to the agreement of sale and not restricted to possession that must immediately follow the execution of the agreement.

( 6 ) THE 2nd decision relied upon is a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in b. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma. in which it was held as follows:". . . . . . . 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. 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 l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document