ORDER :

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved of the docket order, dated 10.01.2020, passed in O.S.No.695 of 2016 on the file of the Court of I Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereby, the trial Court recalled the agreement of sale marked as exhibit A1 as it is insufficiently stamped.

2. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 06.01.2016. The defendant No.1 filed written statement alleging that the suit agreement is not valid under law and it requires stamp duty and registration. Defendants 2 & 3 filed separate written statements contending that they are not aware of the alleged agreement, dated 06.01.2016, by the date of their purchase and that they are bona fide purchasers for value and consideration, and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

4. When the suit stood posted for trial, the plaintiff filed his chief affidavit and documents were marked. When the suit is coming up for cross-examination of PW1, the defendants raised an objection for marking of the agreement of sale, dated 06.01.2016, as exhibit A1, as the same requires stamp duty and registration on the grounds that the alleged sale agreement was written on stamp paper worth about Rs.100/- and it was recited therein that possession was delivered.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contend that though delivery of possession is recited in the agreement of sale, no actual delivery was effected, and therefore, no stamp duty is required to be paid. It was further contended that the recitals in the document are not conclusive but also other averments are to be looked into while determining payment of stamp duty and penalty.

6. The trial Court, by the order impugned, while upholding the objection raised by the defendants, even after marking of the document, demarked the agreement of sale, which is marked as exhibit A1.

7. Aggrieved the decision of the trial Court in demarking exhibit A1, the plaintiff filed this revision contending that the suit itself is filed seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale, dated 06.01.2016, and to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the property and that it was categorically stated in his pleadings that no possession was delivered through the agreement though the document is styled as agreement with possession. The trial Court failed to appreciate the legal position that the document can be received in evidence and can be marked for collateral purpose even if stamp duty is not paid and the same is unregistered.

8. In a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, when an agreement of sale apparently described handing over possession there under is sought to be marked, an objection was raised that it requires stamp duty under Article 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (‘the Act’, for brevity) and it needs to be further registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, it is contended by the plaintiff that though there is a recital that possession was handed over, in fact, no possession was given thereunder and thus, the suit is filed for specific performance as well as recovery of possession and that the very case of the plaintiff is that no possession was delivered under the said document. But, on the other hand, it is contended that the contents of the document would determine the nature of the document for the purpose of collection of stamp duty, and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff is frivolous.

9. Insofar as non-registration of the agreement is concerned, though Section 17 of the Registration Act requires registration of an agreement of sale, by virtue of Section 49 of the