Judgement Key Points

C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) REVISION Petitioner filed O. S. No. 1122 of 2001 for injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession over 230 sq. Yds. in S. No. 296 of Desaipet village, specified in the boundaries mentioned in the Schedule appended to the plaint, which hereinafter would be referred to as "the suit land", and filed IA No. 1372 of 2001 therein seeking an injunction, during the pendency of the suit, restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession over the suit land. The contention of the respondents is that they purchased the suit land and its adjacent land from the revision petitioner and others and that they, but not the revision petitioner, are in possession of the suit land. Exs. P. 1 to p. 4 on behalf of revision petitioner and ex. R. 1 on behalf of respondents were marked during enquiry. Both the Courts below concurrently held that revision petitioner is not entitled to the injunction sought. Hence this revision.

( 2 ) THE contention of Sri J. Nataraja sarma, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, is that the failure of the Courts below in marking the receipt produced by the revision petitioner acknowledging receipt of entire balance sale consideration from the revision petitioner, which also incidentally contains a recital regarding delivery of possession of the suit land, on a wrong assumption that it is not properly stamped as a sale deed as per Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, without keeping in view the fact that under the Stamp Act it is the instrument but not the transaction that is amenable to stamp duty. Placing strong reliance on the passage in para-10 of a Division bench decision of this Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma, 1999 (6) ALT 59 (DB) reading:"in Mekapothula Linga Reddy, 1995 (2) alt 828, the learned single Judge sought to derive support for his conclusion as regards the applicability of stamp duty under article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act from Section 53-A of the Transfer of property Act. As already pointed, one need not look to an provision in other Acts especially in the interpretation of fiscal statutes like the Indian Stamp Act. In any case, Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property act cannot have any direct hearing on the question at issue. The scope of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act is altogether different. It contemplates protection to a transferee in possession which varies from case to case. "he contended that the various observations, and the ratio in Mekapothula Linga Reddy (supra) rendered by a learned single Judge should be deemed to have been either not approved or watered down by the said division Bench decision.

( 3 ) B. Ratnamala case (supra) was referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court in view of the conflict between M. A. Gafoor v. Mohd. Jani and others, 1999 (1) ALT 596, and mekapothula Linga Reddy (supra ). The point for consideration in both those decisions was the applicability of Article 47-A of schedule 1-A of Stamp Act to an agreement of sale. In Mekapothula Linga Reddy (supra) the agreement of sale, was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 20/ -. After paying the balance due from him to the vendor as per the agreement, the purchaser took possession of the property agreed to be sold and. obtained an endorsement to that effect on the reverse of the agreement. Answering the question whether such endorsement of delivery of possession need be stamped as a sale deed as contemplated by Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp act in the affirmative, a learned single Judge held that Article 47-A is not confined to cases of delivery of possession immediately on execution of the agreement of sale, and would also cover cases where possession was delivered subsequent to the agreement of sale. The facts in M. A. Gafoor case (supra) are a little different. in that case a tenant in possession of the property entered into an agreement to purchase

Click Here to Read the rest of this document