ORDER :

M. Seetharama Murti, J.

1. In this revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the defendants, the challenge is to the order, dated 18.02.2019, of the learned III Additional District Judge, Guntur, passed in I.A. No. 378 of 2017 in I.A. No. 785 of 2016 in OS. No. 291 of 2016. By the said order, the application filed by the defendants under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requesting the Court to pass orders to collect deficit stamp duty from the 1st petitioner - 1st defendant by impounding the gift deed, dated 02.07.1987, was dismissed.

2. I have heard the submissions of Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-defendants ['defendants, for brevity]' and, of Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff ['plaintiff', for brevity]. I have perused the material record.

3. The introductory facts, in brief, are as follows:- 'The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property after directing the defendants to vacate and deliver the same to the plaintiff and for costs. The defendants are resisting the suit by filing a written statement. During the pendency of the said suit, the subject Interlocutory Application is filed by the defendants seeking the afore-stated relief.'

4. The case of the defendants in support of the above mentioned request, as stated by the 1st defendant, is this:- 'In the written statement, the defendants raised a defence that the plaintiff is the junior maternal aunt of the 1st defendant and that out of love and affection the plaintiff executed an unregistered gift deed, on 02.07.1987, in her favour in respect of the plaint schedule property and handed over possession of the title deed and the property to the 1st defendant and that she is continuing in possession of the said property ever since the said date and that the revenue authorities also recognised her possession and issued pattadar passbook and title deed book to her after mutating the property in her name in the revenue records. An extent of Ac. 1.50 cents out of the total extent was acquired for purpose of laying a road by National Highway Authority of India [NHAI]. An award was passed in her name. Due to the increase in the values of properties and for non payment of share in the compensation amount, which was demanded, the present suit is filed. To prove the defence of the 1st defendant, the unregistered gift deed is filed into Court. It is not duly stamped on account of close relationship between the parties; hence, it requires impounding. Further, deficit stamp duty and penalty are to be collected on the said gift deed.'

5. Per contra, the case of the plaintiff is this:

The suit is filed for declaration and consequential relief of recovery of possession. The 2nd defendant purchased about Ac. 5.00 cents near National Highway, which is near the plaint schedule property. Shortly thereafter, the plaint schedule property, that is, the land abutting to the said land was put up for sale. 2nd defendant was not having money at that time. She asked the husband of the plaintiff to purchase the said land as it has good potential and is likely to get good returns in future. The plaintiff's husband purchased Ac. 4.33 cents in D. No. 178/A and 178/B in the name of the plaintiff for valuable consideration under three registered sale deeds, dated 15.02.1982, and possession of the same was also delivered by the vendors to the plaintiff. Plaintiff's name was shown as the owner in the adangals. Later, 2nd defendant purchased another Ac. 3.00 cent of land near the plaint schedule property. Out of the above said Ac. 4.33 cents, an extent of Ac. 1.50 cents was acquired by NHAI in 2013. The remaining land is the present plaint schedule property. The original title deed of the plaint schedule property was obtain