The parties are common to both the revisions. Hence, they are disposed of through common order.

2. The it respondent filed O.S.Nos. 34 and 35 of 2007 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 for the relief of specific performance of agreements of sale dated 15-12-2006, in respect of two separate items of property, situated at Narmetta Village, Mangunoor MandaI; Medak District. The trial of the suit commenced, and in the evidence of the 1st respondent, respective agreements of sale were sought to be marked.

3. The petitioner raised an objection, as to the admissibility of the documents. It was pleaded that the agreements required to be registered under entry 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act') on account of the fact that there is a recital as to delivery of possession, and that the stamp duty for the documents is inadequate. The 151 respondent pleaded that though there is a recital, as to delivery of possession in the documents, several acts, which constitute effective delivery of possession, as indicated in the agreements, were to be undertaken by the petitioner. It was also alleged that the petitioner denied delivery of possession in the written statement. The trial Court overruled the objection raised by the petitioner, through its docket orders dated 29-06-2009. Hence, these two revisions.

4. Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement of sale was drafted, only on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-, and there is a recital to the effect that the possession of the property is delivered. He contends that on a document of this nature, stamp duty is to be paid, as though it is a sale deed, and that there is a huge deficit of stamp duty. He submits that even if there is any dispute as to the actual delivery of possession, the guiding factor for the limited purpose of registration and stamp duty would be, the recital in the agreement.

5. Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the 1" respondent, on the other hand, submits that the statement, as to delivery of possession in the agreement of sale cannot be read in isolation, and it is preceded by several conditions, such as obtaining of sale deed by the petitioner, from the original owner, measurement of the land, fixa1ion of boundaries, provision of access etc. He submits that, it is only on completion of these formalities, that the possession can be said to have been delivered. He further submits that when the petitioner has stated in categorical terms in his written-statement that the 1st respondent is not in possession, it is not open to him to contend otherwise.

6. The 1't respondent filed two suits for the relief of specific performance of agreements of sale. Admittedly, the documents are not registered and were written on stamp papers of Rs.100/- each. Schedule I-A of the Act is substituted through A.P. Act 20 of 1974 and 22 of 1990. Explanation-I, to Entry 47-A, reads as under:

"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".

7. The agreements of sale, which evidenced the delivery of possession of the property, are equated to sale deeds, for the limited purpose of stamp duty. To avoid double payment of stamp duty, the provision mandates that the stamp duty paid on the agreements would be taken into account, at the time of registration of the resultant sale deeds.

8. The possession mentioned in Explanation-I, must be effective, actual, and the one, recognized in law. Unless the party under the agreement has the benefit of possession of the