Revision petitioner filed the suit seeking a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession over the plaint schedule property inter alia contending that in pursuance of the settlement reached and as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat he is entitled to continue in possession thereof. During the course of evidence, when he sought to mark a copy of the award passed by the Lok Adalat, counsel for the 1st respondent took an objection for marking that award on the ground that it requires to be stamped and registered. The trial Court upheld the contention that it requires stamp duty as conveyance, but does not require registration and directed the revision petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty thereon as a condition precedent to receive it in evidence. Hence this revision.

2. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and the Special Government Pleader on behalf of the Advocate General, because I wanted to know the stand of the Government in view of the language employed in Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act and since the trial Court passed the order keeping in view Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act as amended by the State of A.P. and Article 20 of Schedule I-A of the State of A.P.

3. O.S.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, was filed by Atcham Venkateswararao against the revision petitioner and others for declaration of his title to and possession and for profits on the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to that plaint, of which the property covered by the present suit is one. After the said case was referred to Lok Adalat as per the compromise between the parties, the Lok Adalat passed an award whereunder 2nd defendant in that suit, who is the revision petitioner herein, who was in possession and enjoyment of the properties mentioned in the B schedule of that suit i.e. property covered by this suit, was held to be entitled to continue to be in possession and enjoyment thereof with absolute rights. Alleging that even after the said award respondents are interfering with his possession over the suit property, revision petitioner filed the suit for perpetual injunction.

4. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 lays down that an award of the Lok Adalat would be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court.

5. Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act after its amendment by virtue of A.P. Act 8 of 1998 reads

"Conveyance" includes a conveyance on sale, every instrument and every decree or final order of any civil Court, by which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in or declared to be of any other person, inter vivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule-I or Schedule-I-A, as the case may be".

6. Since a plain reading of the said definition shows that decree of the Court transferring interest in immovable property also would be conveyance, amenable to stamp duty as per Article 20 of Schedule 1-A, I issued notice to the learned Advocate General for knowing the stand of the State Government on this aspect.

Sri Y. Chandra Sekhar, Special Government Pleader, stated that the reasons that prompted the government to amend Section 2(10) are mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the A.P. Act 8 of 1998. The relevant portion thereof reads

(i) It has been observed that some of the parties are obtaining decrees from Civil Courts declaring them as owners along with a direction for mutation in the ownership records and thereby evading payment of stamp duty on transfer of immovable property.

Hence it is felt necessary to amend Section 2(10) to bring such Court decrees also within the scope of the definition of conveyance under Clause 2(10) of the Bill. It is also necessary to incorporate suitable provisions so as to arrest leakage of stamp duty in the guise of release of co-ownership in the property or dissolutions of partnerships by means of explana