1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 11.02.2013 in O.S. No.90 of 2008 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, wherein the Court below overruled the objection of the revision petitioner/defendant regarding the objection taken to mark Ex.A1, agreement of sale on the ground that it requires stamp duty and also registration, since Ex.A1 agreement of sale shows possession was delivered as on the date of execution to the respondent/plaintiff.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

The respondent/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.01.2004. When the plaintiff want to mark the same in the suit as Ex.A1, the revision petitioner/defendant has taken objection stating that the document contains clause regarding delivery of possession. As such, it requires payment of stamp duty as well as registration. The said objection was overruled by the Court below on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff purchased stamp worth Rs.35,000/- for the purpose of executing the registered sale deed by the revision petitioner. Since, the revision petitioner refused to execute the registered sale deed, they have filed the suit. The Court below found that since the plaintiff has deposited Rs.35,000/- towards purchase of stamp, the Court below over-ruled the objection raised by the revision petitioner and passed order dated 11.02.2013. Against the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the agreement of sale dated 21.01.2004, which is sought to be marked as Ex.A1 contains a clause regarding delivery of possession. As such, payment of stamp duty is required under Article 47 A of Schedule IA of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity ‘the Act’). When once the document is of sale and liable for payment of stamp duty, unless necessary stamp duty and penalty is paid by impounding the document, the same cannot be received under evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. He also contends so far as the procedure for impounding the document under Section 33 of the Act, the Court below has not considered the effect of Sections 33 and Section 35 read with Article 47A Schedule 1A of Act and erroneously over ruled the objection raised by the revision petitioner on the ground that already an amount of Rs.35,000/- was deposited by way of challan for purchase of stamps by the respondent/plaintiff.

4. He would further contend that the issue is squarely covered by the following Judgments:

B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma (1999 (6) ALD 160 (DB)), Ponnapola Seetha Ramaiah v. Sanagala Sreenivasulu (2012 (6) ALT 549), Jannuchander Babu v. Manchikatla Satyanarayana and others (2003 (2) ALD 640) and Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 401).

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that since already amount of Rs.35,000/- is deposited by way of challan for purchase of stamp papers to get the registered sale deed executed by the revision petitioner, the Court below found that there is no such necessity for impounding the document. As such, the Court below rightly over ruled the objection raised by the revision petitioner. He also contends that there is no requirement in law and in all the judgments cited by the revision petitioner, the facts are not similar, since in the present case, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is deposited towards stamp duty for the purpose of getting executed the registered sale deed.

6. In this case, admittedly, the agreement of sale dated 21.01.2004, basing on which the suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent, contains a clause regarding delivery of possession. When once the agreement of sale contains a clause regarding delivery of possession, it attracts Article 47A of Schedule I A of the Act and liable for stamp duty and same is to be paid on the said document as if it is a sale.