B. PRAKASH RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is before us on a reference made by our learned brother- b. S. Raikote, J. ,-differing with the view taken by another learned single Judge of this Court in M. A. Gafoor vs. Mohd. Jani and others as to the interpretation of Explanation I to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short "the Act" ).

( 2 ) A few facts which are germane for answering the reference are: Thepetitioner had filed a suit in O. S. No. 15 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior civil Judge s Court, Kurnool seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 14-11-1988 which Was marked as Ex. A-1 during the trial. On the objection taken by the respondent-defendant by filing an application in LA. No. 232 of 1988 seeking to impound the said document and levy stamp duty and penalty as a sale deed under Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court allowed the said application overruling the objection taken by the plaintiff-petitioner herein as to the permissibility of the said objection once the document is marked under Section 35 of the Act and held that the said document is insufficiently stamped and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on Ex. A-1 or otherwise it was held that the document becomes inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in revision before this Court.

( 3 ) THE document recites that the possession of the schedule mentionedproperty was previously delivered to the vendee. It is also stated therein that the entire sale consideration has already been received.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter came up for admission before the learned single Judge,the Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in M. A. ,gafoor (1 supra) to contend that the document in question does not attract the provisions of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act. In the said decision, the suit was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale. On the date of the agreement, the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant and as per the Agreement, he need not pay rents thereafter and he can also sublet the premises to others. In that factual matrix, the learned Judge held that there was no delivery of possession warranting the application of the provisions of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act. In the opinion of the learned referring judge, even if there is a recital in the agreement that the possession was delivered or it is with the purchaser, it would attract Article 47-A of schedule 1-A of the Act. In view of the difference of opinion, the matter was referred to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and thus the matter is before us.

( 5 ) BEFORE we take upon the task of answering the reference, it is pertinentto have a glance at Explanation I to Article 47-A Schedule 1-A of the Act, which is pivotal for this reference. It reads:"explanation I: 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: provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause (b) of Article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed. "

( 6 ) PRIOR to the introduction of the aforesaid Explanation, under theamending Act 17 of 1986, Article 20 and Article 47-A were amended. Later, under the amending Act No. 21 of 1995, the said explanation was added to bring the agreements specified therein within the definition of sale for the purpose of charging stamp duty, which is self-explanatory.

( 7 ) IN Mekapothula Linga Reddy vs. D. Gangi Reddy and others, the agreementof sale was executed on a Rs. 20/- stamp paper, under which certain payment was made at the time of agreement and balance was to be paid at a later date. The agreem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document