JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us (Eswara Prasad, J), inasmuch as the correctness of the decision of Radhakrishna Rao, J. in A. Chandrasekhar v. R. Narasimha Reddy (1990) 1 ALT 264 was questioned before the learned Judge. The point relates to the retrospectivity of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act. 17/ 1986 ). Incidentally, the correctness of the decision of Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. in K. Obaiah v. T. Venkatamma, (1988) 2 ALT 435 : (AIR 1989 NOC 174) as to what is a case decided also has arisen.

( 2 ) THE petitioners in the revision are the defendants in O. S. No. 156 of 1981. The 1st defendant is the daughter of one Subbaiah. The plaintiff is the sister of Subbaiah. The plaintiff claimed the suit property under a registered settlement deed dated 25-8-1974. The 1st defendant contended that Subbaiah executed a registered settlement deed dated 23-5-1979 in her favour. The plaintiff s suit is for declaration of title and possession. During the course of the trial, the 1st defendant sought to file an unregistered deed dated 4-9-1959 said to be a Khararnama under which Subbaiah is said to have agreed to settle the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant in consideration of some other property said to have been given to him by 1st defendant. The plaintiff s counsel objected and relied upon the judgment of Radhakrishna Rao, J. above referred to.

( 3 ) THE learned District Munsif felt bound by the said decision of Radhakrishna, Rao, J. for holding that the date of execution of the document was not the criterion for purpose of stamp duty and that the date of presentation of the document as evidence was relevant. He then held that under the latter part of Sec. 2 (24) (c) an agreement to settle property was also liable to stamp duty and rejected the deed dated 4-9-1959 as inadmissible. It is this order that is questioned in this revision.

( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the decision of this Court in A. Chandrasekhar s (1990 (1) ALT 264) (supra) case is not correct and requires reconsideration. It is contended that every document is liable to a stamp duty in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as in force on the date of execution of the document irrespective of the date of presentation or marking it in court. Learned counsel also submits that the document does not require any stamp duty either under the unamended provisions of the Stamp Act or after the amendment by the Andhra Pradesh Act 17 of 1986. Even assuming that the document requires stamp duty, only such stamp duty or penalty as was payable on 4-9-1959 alone would be payable and not such stamp duty or penalty as is payable after the commencement of Andhra Pradesh Act 17 of 1986.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that the decision of the lower court is hot a "case decided" in view of the judgment of Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, J. in K. Obaiah s (AIR 1989 NOC 174) (Andh Pra) (supra) case and that in any event, the document is inadmissible as it requires stamp duty and registration whether under the unamended Act or after the amendment of 1986. Learned counsel also placed before the Court relevant rulings relating to retrospectivety or otherwise of the law relating to stamp duty whenever there is any change in the statute relating to stamp duty.

( 6 ) THE first question that falls for consideration is whether an instrument, which has been duly stamped, according to the law in force on the date of its execution, can be said to be inadmissible by application of any subsequent amendment to the statute relating to stamp duty, such as the A. P. Amending Act 17 of 1986. Section 2 (6) of the 1899 Act defines the word chargeable as under :" chargeable means as applied to an instrument executed or first executed after the commencement of this Act, and, as applied to any other

Click Here to Read the rest of this document