The petitioners executed an agreement of sale on 28-01-2001 in favour of the respondents for sale of an extent of Acs.4.00 Guntas of land in survey No.79 & 80 of Qutbhullapur Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The parties agreed to divide the land into plots and the petitioners have undertaken to execute sale deeds in respect of the plots in the lay out in favour of the persons that may be nominated by the respondents. It is stated that the substantial extent of property was sold as contemplated under the agreement. However, disputes have arisen as regards the execution of sale deeds in respect of above plots.

2. The respondents filed O.S. No.545 of 2006 in the Court of the Special Judge for trial of SC & ST (POA) Act – Cum – Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, for the relief of specific performance of the agreement of sale, as regards the balance 10 plots. The petitioners filed written statement opposing the suit. The trial of the suit commenced. The respondents, on their part, intended to make the agreement of sale, dated 28-01-2001, as part of their documentary evidence. The petitioners, however, raised an objection as to its admissibility, on the ground that it was not properly stamped. It was pleaded that there is a recital in the agreement to the effect that possession of the property was delivered and that according to Article -47A of Schedule – IA of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’), the stamp duty ought to have been paid as though it was a sale deed itself. The trial Court passed docket order, dated 28-11-2011, overruling the objection. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.

3. Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that there is a clear recital in the agreement to the effect that possession of the land was delivered and in that view of the matter, the stamp duty ought to have been paid as though it is a sale deed. He submits that the view taken by the trial Court that the delivery of possession was for the limited purpose of dividing the land into plots, cannot be countenanced and no distinction as such, exists between the delivery of possession for dividing the land into plots and, possession for other purposes. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in V.L. Narasimha Rao v. K.T. Pentaiah (2002 (3) ALD 321), Tirumala Housing v. G.P.R. Housing Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2006 AP 392) and other decisions.

4. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the effective possession of the land remained with the petitioners and the agreement provided for division of the land into plots, under a layout and for that limited purpose, the possession was delivered. He contends that the petitioners themselves executed quite large number of sale deeds in respect of the plots, carved out of the land covered by the agreement and that in all the sale deeds, there is a clear recital to the effect that the possession of the concerned plot is delivered by the petitioners, to the respective purchasers. He contends that unless the delivery of possession is absolute in nature, Article 47-A of the Act does not get attracted. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in Cherayala Srinivas v. Moola Sujatha and others (2010 (1) ALD 246).

5. In the course of trial of the suit filed by the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, question arose as to the very admissibility of the agreement. The petitioners did not dispute the fact that there exists an agreement of sale, dated 28-01-2001, between them and the respondents. Their objection was on the ground that the document was not stamped as required under law. It is referable to Explanation-I to Article 47A of Schedule -IA to the Act. It reads:

“Explanation I :-An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable a