The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.20 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge (FastTrack Court), Ranga Reddy District. The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-07-1998, in respect of suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.33.33 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Mangalpally village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandai in Ranga Reddy District.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant entered into agreement initially for an extent of Acs.150.00 of land, who later executed sale deeds in respect of Acs.116.06 guntas in favour of the nominees of the plaintiff but failed to execute the sale deeds in respect of balance area of Acs.33.33 guntas. The defendant opposed the suit inter alia raising objection that the agreement of sale, which is engrafted on a stamp paper of Rs.1 00/- cannot be looked into as per the provisions of A.P. Act 21 of 1995. The defendant contended that when the immovable property is delivered possession to the vendee under agreement of sale or pursuant there to, the agreement has to bear stamp duty on par with conveyance deed. When the suit was coming up for trial, objection was raised by the defendant regarding admissibility of the suit agreement, dated 25-07-1998. Considering the question, the trial Court placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma1 and Veena Hasmukh Jain v. State of Maharashtra2 and came to the conclusion that if the agreement itself recites the delivery of possession, such document has to be charged with stamp duty as if it is a conveyance under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Stamp Act, for brevity). Accordingly, the trial Court on 08-03-2006 ordered plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty under the Stamp Act or seek the document to be sent to Collector for impounding under Section 38(1) of the Stamp Act. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the said order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the suit agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff falls under Article 6(A) of the Stamp Act and not under Article 47-Aof Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act. He vehemently contends that Article 47-A describes the instruments in relation to sale as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and an agreement not being sale within the ambit of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, main provision of Article 47 -A of Schedule I-A of Stamp Act has no application to an agreement of sale. According to the learned counsel, it is only by reason of Explanation I below Article 47-A, an agreement to sell followed by delivery of possession is made chargeable as sale under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of Stamp Act. Therefore, he would submit that Explanation to a provision cannot control the interpretation of the main provision. He would rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. Cement Manufacturers Association v. State of MP.3, wherein the Supreme Court explained the function of "Explanation and proviso". Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Ratnamala (1 supra), under Article 47 -A of Schedule I-A of Stamp Act, an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession must be charged as a sale deed. He also placed reliance on a recent decision of this Court in C.R.P.No. 849 of 2006, dated 17-4-2006, between the same parties, in which the respondent herein is the first petitioner and petitioner herein is the respondent. The said case arose out of the suit being O.S.No.95 of 2004 filed by the petitioner herein and during the trial, the trial Court admitted an agreement of sale, which also evidenced delivery of possession. When the defendants filed the said revision, this Court allowed the same holding that the agreement is chargeable with the stamp duty under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of Stamp