The civil revision petition is filed by the defendants in the suit OS No.22 of 2011 against the order dated 05-01- 2018 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Narsapur, West Godavari District whereby and whereunder the objection raised by revision petitioners herein (defendants) regarding the admissibility of suit agreement of sale dated 18-11-2010 on the ground that it is not signed by parties and properly stamped is overruled.

2. 1st respondent herein, the plaintiff in the suit, filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18-11-2010. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, plaintiff sought to mark the document styled as sale agreement dated 18-11-2010 curiously, not signed by either of the parties. The trial Court, on the plea of the plaintiff that the document is being brought on record only to prove that the plaintiff got the document prepared by reducing the terms of the sale agreement, as agreed to by the 1st defendant owner of the suit schedule property (1st petitioner herein), brought it to the office of the Sub-Registrar for registration, but the 1st defendant denied to execute the same, admitted the same into evidence subject to assessing its evidentiary value at a later stage. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition.

3. Facts of the case as emerging from the pleadings are; the 1st defendant-petitioner herein is the owner of the suit schedule property and other defendants are her close relatives. Plaintiff offered to purchase the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- which was accepted by the 1st defendant. An advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid on 15-11-2010 in the presence of 2nd defendant and one Seelam Rajesh, after settling the terms of sale at the house of 1st defendant. Further amount of Rs.5,10,000/- was paid to the 1st defendant, in respect of the same transaction on 18-11-2010 on the understanding that the 1st defendant would execute registered sale agreement and handover possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The latter condition was complied with as defendants 1 and 2 seems to have gone to the suit schedule property and handed over possession thereof to the plaintiff.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant, though agreed to execute the registered sale agreement did not come forward to execute the sale agreement dated 18-11-2010 though it was drafted and prepared for registration, which necessitated him to file the above suit.

5. Sri T. Sharath, learned counsel for the defendants- revision petitioners contended under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a document can be anything like letters, figures or marks, a map, words printed, lithograph, photograph and even inscriptions made on the metal plate or stone and a caricature can be considered as document. Under Section 2(14) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1889, (for short, the Stamp Act) a document to become an instrument, it has necessarily to be executed by the parties and unless the parties to a document execute the document, it does not become an instrument chargeable with duty and unless a document fulfils the requirement to be considered as an instrument, it does not attract stamp duty and for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, a document must assume the character of an instrument.

6. Though notices are served, none appears for the 1st respondent-plaintiff.

7. Now the point that falls for consideration is whether the agreement of sale dated 18-11-2010, which none of the parties have signed can be construed as evidence in the eye of law and; if so can it be received in evidence, particularly when possession of the suit schedule property is alleged to have been delivered to the plaintiff under that document ?

8. It is to be seen from the contents of the document dated 18-11-2010, the parties have agreed to enter into transaction in respect of sale of the suit schedule property by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is stated to have paid