The court has the discretion to either collect the stamp duty and penalty itself or send the document to the Collector for collection.

ORDER :

These two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders, dated 22.11.2018, passed in I.A.Nos. 2123 of 2018 and 2124 of 2018 in O.S.Nos.124 of 2013 and 125 of 2013 respectively on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, filed by the 2nd defendant under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to send the disputed sale agreements, dated 08.08.2011 and 12.08.2011 respectively for payment of stamp duty and penalty.

2. Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/2nd defendant and Sri N.A.Ramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and defendants for convenience and clarity.

3. The facts leading to filing of these two applications, in brief, are that the plaintiff, Chigurupati Girija Lakshmi, filed two suits, viz., O.S.Nos.124 of 2013 and 125 of 2013 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Guntur, seeking a direction to the defendants to execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property or in the alternative to direct the 1st defendant to refund the sale consideration of Rs.22,75,000/-and Rs.30,00,000/-respectively. While so, the 2nd defendant in O.S.Nos.124 of 2013 and 125 of 2013, Jetti Madhumai and Posani Kalyan Teja, filed two interlocutory applications seeking a direction to the 1st respondent/plaintiff therein to pay the amounts required to make up the duty payable on the agreements of sale, dated 08.08.2011 and 12.08.2011 respectively.

4. The case of the 2nd defendant in both the suits in support of the applications filed by them to pay the amounts to make up the duty payable on the agreements, dated 08.08.2011 and 12.08.2011, in brief, is as follows:

(a) The alleged agreements of sale are inadmissible in evidence for want of sufficient stamp duty as the said agreements purport to be possessory agreements of sale and are liable to be stamped under Article 47-A of the Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act and are liable to be impounded. Hence, the 2nd defendant prayed to direct the plaintiff to pay the amounts to make up the duty payable on the agreements of sale with penalty.

(b) The averments in the counter filed on behalf of the plaintiff to these petitions, in brief, are as follows :

The agreements of sale dated 08.08.2011 and 12.08.2011 was already sent by the trial Court to the District Registrar for impounding and the same were returned after receiving the stamp duty and penalty. The petitions were filed to drag on the proceedings and are liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court observed that even as per the admission of the plaintiff or perusal of the contents of the disputed agreement of sale, it is averred as if the possession of the property was delivered and in the said circumstances, it shall be construed as the possession of the sale agreement. Further, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff herself reported no objection to impound the same by sending it to the District Registrar concerned. Thus, the trial Court, taking into consideration the long waves of the above contentions on the disputed agreement of sale, ordered the disputed agreements of sale, dated 08.08.2011 and 12.08.2011 to be sent to the District Registrar for impounding the same.

6. The revision petitioners/defendants mainly raised the following grounds in the grounds of revision :-

(i) Under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, no instrument chargeable with duty is admissible in evidence unless duty is paid on that instrument;

(ii) The Court below ought not to have sent straightaway the agreements of sale to the District Registrar when the plaintiff agreed to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty thereon;

(iii) The Court below ought to have followed the decision in Chilakuri Gangulappa v. RDO, Madanapalle & ot