1. This Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.09.11.2011 in IA.No.405 of 2009 in OS.No.149 of 2009 of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Tuni.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. She filed the said suit for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs. She pleaded that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and her grandfather had executed a settlement deed dt.04.05.1987 in her favor settling item No.1 of the plaint schedule property in her favor; that she purchased the remaining part of the plaint schedule property and some other property under a registered sale deed dt.15.04.1992; that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same; she engaged the 1st respondent as her clerk to assist her in cultivating the plaint schedule property for the year 2006-07; thereafter, she was dissatisfied with his work and removed him; for the said reason the 1st respondent and his two sons bore a grudge against her and attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule property.

3. A written statement was filed by respondents denying the plaint averments and contending that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale dt.29.02.1996 with the 1st respondent by paying part of sale consideration; that on 27.05.1996, the petitioner received the balance sale consideration and handed over possession of the property to the respondents; and that by virtue of the said document, they are in possession of the plaint schedule property.

4. Trial commenced and in the course of their evidence the respondents sought to mark the said agreement of sale dt.29.02.1996 on their behalf. The agreement of sale dt.29.02.1996 specifically recited that the property was agreed to be sold for Rs.70,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.59,000/- was paid on the date on which the agreement of sale was executed and the balance of Rs.11,000/- was to be paid before 29.05.1996. The said amount was paid on 27.05.1996 and then possession was delivered and endorsement to that effect was made on the reverse of the agreement.

5. The counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff then raised an objection to the marking of the said document contending that as per Explanation- I to Article 47-A of Schedule 1A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, ‘the Act’), the said agreement needs to be stamped as a regular sale deed; that it was not done; and therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence.

6. By order dt.09.11.2011, the Court below overruled the said objection and held that the agreement of sale did not require payment of stamp duty and penalty under Article 47-A and that it is admissible in evidence.

7. Challenging the said order this Revision has been filed.

8. Heard the counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam and the counsel for the respondents/defendants Sri K.S. Murthy.

9. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the trial court is contrary to law; that the agreement of sale, under Explanation – I of Article 47-A in Schedule 1A to the Act, was followed by delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold; so, it shall be chargeable as a sale under the said Article; and unless deficit stamp duty and penalty therefor are paid as per the Act, it could not have been admitted in evidence; that the judgment in Sri Lakshmi Housing Enterprise v. Hajbegum and others (2010 (6) ALT 24) relied upon by the respondents/defendants does not reflect the correct state of law and therefore, the trial court erred in applying it. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Veena Hasmukh Jain & anr. V. State of Maharashtra and others ((1999) 5 SCC 725) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma (1999 (6) ALD 160).

10. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents