SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(AP) 1156

G.ROHINI
K. Sudhakar Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Sudha Constructions – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:D.V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V. Madhusudhana Rao, Prabhu Nath Vasireddy, Advocates.

Judgment :

1. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.2875 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the VII-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Court below holding that the document dated 16.12.2004 produced by the plaintiff in evidence is insufficiently stamped and requires payment of proper stamp duty and penalty under Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

2. The facts, in brief, are as under:

The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.2875 of 2006 against the respondents herein/defendants for specific performance of the “agreement of sale and construction” dated 16.12.2004. When the said agreement was sought to be marked as Ex.P-1 through P.W.1, an objection was raised by the counsel for the defendants as to the admissibility of the said document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped. The said objection was upheld by the court below by order dated 14.10.2010 and the plaintiff/ revision petitioner was directed to take steps for payment of proper stamp duty and penalty as r








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top