Back
C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
Jannuchander Babu – Appellant
Versus
Manchikatla Satyanarayana – Respondent
Key Points: - The Courts below correctly refused to receive a receipt that contained a recital of delivery of possession and was not stamped as a sale deed under Article 47-A, Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act (!) . - A document evidencing delivery of possession in pursuance of an agreement of sale, or a receipt recording payment of balance sale consideration with such a recital, is subject to stamp duty as a sale deed under Article 47-A, Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, per the Division Bench in Ratnamala case, and related precedents (!) . - The amendment object of Article 47-A aims to equalize an agreement with a conveyance to realize revenue at an earlier point for agreements akin to sale deeds; hence such receipts with possession delivery must be properly stamped (!) . - Therefore, in cases where a document contains a recital of possession delivery under an agreement of sale, it has to be stamped as a sale deed; arguments that it should be stamped only as a receipt are rejected (!) . - The revision petition was dismissed since both Courts below found no prima facie case and the balance of convenience did not favor the revision petitioner; no costs awarded (!) .
( 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 petiti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
