This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.09.2010, passed in O.S.No.86 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge directed the petitioners/ plaintiffs to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale, dated 25.07.2001.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioners/plaintiffs are: Thippavathi Venkata Ramaiah was the owner of the suit schedule property. The petitioners/plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit schedule property from him under an agreement of sale, dated 25.07.2001, for Rs. 2,00,000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- Thippavathi Venkata Ramaiah, who excuted the agreement of sale, died. The 1st defendant is claiming the property of Venkata Ramaiah under a registered gift deed, dated 12.10.2001, said to have been excuted by Venkata Ramaiah. The 1st defendant in the written statement pleaded that he executed a registered settlement deed on 30.01.2006 in favour of his son Venkta Subbaiah, who has been arrayed as 5th defendant. The defendants raised objection with regard to the admissibility of the sale deed (sic. agreement), dated 25.07.2001, on the ground that the document is not properly stamped. The learned Senior Civil Judge heard learning counsel appearing for the parties and proceeded to treat the agreement of sale, dated 25.07.2001, is coupled with the possession and therefore, it is required to be properly stamped and accordingly, directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay the stamp duty and penalty, by order, dated 20.09.2010. Relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:

"5. Sec.35 of Indian Stamp Act mandates that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon unless such instrument is duly stamped. The plaintiff shall remember that Sec.35 of Indian Stamp Act is such a rigid law, which does not excuse any person despite his pitiable condition for not paying stamp duty and penalty. Whether such insufficient stamped document is useful or not useful, a duty is cast upon the court to impound such document until parties pay the stamp duty and penalty on that document. In view of the above said law, this court has placed its reliance .of a decision rendered by our Hon'ble Apex Court in a case decided between "Avinash Kumar Chouhan v. Vijay Krishna Mishra", reported in AIR 2009 SC 1489 and also relied on a division bench judgment of our Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a well known case decided between "B.Ratnamala v. G.Rudramma", reported in 1999 (6) ALT 59 (O.B.). It is held in the said Hon'ble Apex Court judgment that the Parliament has in Sec.35 advisedly used the words "for any purpose whatsoever". Thus, the purpose for which a document is sought to be admitted in evidence or the extent thereof would not be relevant factor for not invoking the provisions. It is also stated that a document, which is not sufficiently stamped, is inadmissible in evidence. It is held in the 2nd cited decision Le., in Ratnamala's case that an agreement of sale, which has evidenced by its recitals of delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold is liable for stamp duty and penalty like a sale. Therefore, the said agreement of sale, dated 25.7.2001 which has also evident by its recitals of delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold is also liable for stamp duty and penalty like a sale.

6. With great respects to our Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the above two cases cited by the advocate for plaintiffs are not at all applicable to the present circumstances of this case. This court has perused both the decisions very carefully. In 2010(1) ALT 225, the facts are that an agreement of sale in the said case was marked without any objection raised by the opposite party. Therefore, under the