R. BAYAPU REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 101 of 1991 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, questioning the impugned order dated 11-4-1997 passed in IA (SR) No. 1074 of 1997 holding that the suit agreement of sale dated 10-4-1990 is liable to be stamped as a sale-deed as contemplated under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian stamp Act (for short the act ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit agreement in O. S. No. 101 of 1991against the respondents/defendants seeking the relief of specific performance of the suit agreement of sale dated 10-4-1990 said to have been executed in his favour by the 3rd defendant, who is the father of defendants 1 and 2. During the course of his evidence, the plaintiff as P. W. I sought to mark the suit agreement as exhibit. Objection was taken for such marking on the ground that it is not duly stamped as contemplated under Article 47-A of the Act for treating the same as a sale-deed. In view of the delivery of possession of the property effected under the said document, the learned VII Additional judge upheld such objection and treated the document as liable for stamp duty as a sale-deed under Article 47-A of the Act. Questioning the said order, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for both sides.

( 4 ) EXPLANATION 1 to Section (sic. Article) 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Actis as follows:-"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. "it is clear from the said Explanation 1 that the document even though it is styled as agreement of sale, is liable for Stamp Duty as a sale-deed if (i) such agreement is followed by delivery of possession of the property; or (ii) if such document by itself evidences delivery of possession of the property to the vendee. It is to be seen from a perusal of the evidence in this case whether any of these conditions have been satisfied regarding delivery of possession in the present case.

( 5 ) THE suit agreement of sale refers in the last para just above the scheduleof the property that it was agreed between the parties that the purchaser can retain and collect rent from the schedule property after the agreement of sale of the property and the vendor will in no way interfere or object for the same even if the purchaser sub-lets the premises and collects the rent. It is clear from this recital contained in the agreement that the plaintiff, who was already the tenant of the building was specifically permitted to retain the possession and collect the rent from the schedule property subsequent to the execution of the agreement and he was also authorised to sub-let the premises. The agreement does not speak anywhere that delivery of possession of property was effected for the first time under the agreement and as such it does not evidence such delivery of possession. Therefore, the second clause mentioned in Explanation 1 to the effect that the agreement shall evidence delivery of possession of the property to the vendee is not satisfied.

( 6 ) WITH regard to the first aspect as to whether the agreement is followedby delivery of possession, it is to be seen, as stated above, that the disputed agreement of sale does not state anywhere that the delivery of possession followed execution of the agreement. Apart from this, it is the specific case of the respondents themselves that the plaintiff was in possession of the property even prior to the said agreement of sale dated 10-4-1990 as their tenant and committed default in payment of rent and as such they filed R. C. No. 836 of 1990 seeking eviction on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. When once the tenancy of the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit property even prior to the execution of the sale agreement dated 10-4-1990 is admitted it clearly means that the plaintiff was already in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document