ORDER :

1. 1st Plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 28.11.2022 in O.S. No. 101 of 2009 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 101 of 2009 against the defendants seeking specific performance of possessory sale agreements dated 08.11.1996, 12.02.1997, 29.01.1997, 28.09.1996, 22.12.1996, 14.12.1996, 24.11.1996, 24.11.1996, 24.11.1996, 14.12.1996, 30.10.1996, 30.10.1996, 15.11.1996, 03.01.1996, 24.10.1996, 29.01.1997 and 10.11.1996 respectively etc.

3. Defendants by filing written statement are contesting the suit.

4. PW-1 filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with possessory agreement of sale dated 08.11.1996. Trial Court by docket order dated 29.11.2022 came to the conclusion that document dated 08.11.1996 is liable for stamp duty and penalty and hence, declined to receive the same. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

5. Heard Paladugu Ganesh, learned counsel for petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that sale agreement is in dispute and hence, stamp duty need not be paid. He would also submit that suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale date 08.11.1996 and hence the agreement of sale can be received for collateral purpose. He would further submit that though possession was delivered under the agreement of sale dated 8-11-1996, according to learned counsel the document can be treated as simple agreement and necessary stamp duty till be paid after decree when the document is presented before the Sub Registrar for registration. Thus, he would contend that unless the suit is decreed, no stamp duty need be paid on the document dated 08.11.1996.

7. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the document dated 08.11.1996 requires stamp duty under Schedule I-A of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899?

8. The document dated 08.11.1996, as per the nomenclature, possessory agreement of sale. Recitals in the document, disclose that schedule property is handed over on the date of execution of agreement i.e. 08.11.1996. The agreement dated 08.11.1996 was scribed on stamp paper worth Rs. 101/-. Whether the agreement of sale with possession requires stamp duty and if so what the stamp duty as per the provisions of the Stamp Act is to be considered.

9. It is appropriate to extract the explanation to Schedule IA of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as follows:

“Explanation-I: An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a “sale” under this article:

Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause (B) of Article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed.”

10. The Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Ratnamala vs. G. Rudramma, AIR 2000 AP 167 : 1999 (6) ALT 59 while answering reference held thus:

“9. While considering the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, it has to be borne in mind that the said Act being a fiscal statute, plain language of the section as per its natural meaning is the true guide. No inferences, analogies or any presumptions can have any place. As the incidence of duty is on the execution of the deed, regard must, therefore, be had only to the terms of the document. Thus the main question that falls for consideration is the interpretation of the expressions “followed by or evidencing delivery of possession.” These expressions cannot be read in isolation and one has to find the true meaning by reading the entire Explanation and more so in conjunction with the earlier expression i.e. “agreement.” Even if these two expressions are looked independently, it means an agreement to sell followed by delivery of possession and an agreement to sell evidencing delivery