This revision is directed against the order dated 17-02-2010 passed. in I.A. No. 553 of 2009 in O.S.No. 91 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil. Judge at Nagarkurnool, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Article 47-A of the Stamp Act read with Section 151 CPC.

2. The respondent is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioners are the defendants in OS.No. 91 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Nagarkurnool, The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant as Kartha and Manager of the Joint-family offered for sale of land known as KHASI REDDY WANI KUNTA to an extent of Ac. 7-22 guntas situated at Tandoor village and Mandal Mahabubnagar District. The plaintiff agreed to purchase land and paid Rs. 50,000/on 29-11-2004 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 12-3-2005 and Rs. 1,49,000/- on 7-6-2005. Thus, she paid total consideration of Rs. 2,99,000/- and the balance to be paid is Rs. 2,67,250/-. Despite her readiness and willingness for payment of the remaining sale consideration, the defendants evaded to receive balance sale consideration and execute the registered sale deed. Hence, she filed suit for specific performance of contract of sale. The defendants filed .written statement disputing the very contract of sale. The plaintiff while being examined as P.W.1 marked the receipt-cum-agreement of sale dated 29-11-2004 as EX.A-1. Thereafter, the defendants filed I.A.No. 553 of 2000 under Article 47 A Explanation-l of Stamp Act read with Section 151 CPC with the following relief:-

"For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to determine the admissibility of suit document dated 29-11-2004, the receipt-cum-agreement under Art. 47 A, Explanation-1 of Stamp Act and to pass order or orders as the Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case."

3. Sri C. Narasimha Rao, junior counsel for the petitioners-defendants has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petition. It is stated in the affidavit that possession has been claimed by the plaintiff pursuant to the Receipt-cum-Agreement of sale dated 29-11-2004, stamp duty and penalty is required to be collected treating delivery of possession of the land is pursuant to receipt-cum-agreement of sale dated 29-11-2004 as provided under Explanation-1 appended to Article 47-A of Stamp Act. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. It is asserted in the counter that there was no delivery of possession of the land subsequent to the receipt-cum-agreement of sale and therefore, Explanation appended to Article 47 A of Schedule 1 A of Stamp Act cannot be pressed into service. For better appreciation, I may refer paras 6 to 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the plaintiff resisting the petition.

"That, on the date of entering into sale of land in regard to "Kasireddy vani Kunta" comprising the Sy.Nos.11 and 16, there was mutual understanding that the area of 7 acres 22 guntas was to be worked out by survey. The petitioner No.1 herein has permitted me to enter into lands bearing Sy. Nos. 1 and 16 for survey of the area of land in Sy.Nos. 11 and 16 extent 7 acres 22 guntas, accurately. As per the understanding between the parties, I have got surveyed the area of land under sale in Sy.Nos. 11 and 16. After misunderstandings between the parties, the land under sale has remained in the control and protection of mine.

7. That, subsequent to the agreement there is no delivery of the possession of the land to me in written by the petitioners and even there is no taking of the possession for land under sale subsequent to the agreement.

8. That, it is submitted that as per the Explanation 1 to the Article 47 A of the Schedule I-A, there is no delivery of possession pursuant to the agreement of sale and subsequently. The petitioners have given the possession of the entire area