ORDER :

1. Plaintiffs in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 08.11.2022 in O.S. No. 497 of 2015 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Suit O.S. No. 497 of 2015 was filed by plaintiffs against the defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.11.2010 or in alternative for refund of advance amount with interest etc.

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

4. In the agreement of sale dated 15.11.2010 relied upon by the plaintiffs, it was recited that the schedule property has been in possession of the vendee from 1987. The said document was sought to be marked before the Court. Trial Court by order dated 08.11.2022 came to the conclusion that document dated 15.11.2010 is liable for stamp duty and penalty and hence, the same cannot be marked. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

5. Sri A. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for petitioners’ would submit that no delivery of property was effected under the agreement and hence, stamp duty and penalty need not be paid under Schedule I-A of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. He would also submit that trial Court failed to consider the said aspect and erroneously directed the petitioners to pay the stamp duty and penalty and thus, prayed to set aside the order of trial Court.

6. Now, the point for consideration is:

Whether the document dated 15.11.2010 requires stamp duty under Schedule I-A of Article 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899?

7. It is appropriate to extract the explanation to Schedule I-A 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.”

8. The Division Bench of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Ratnamala vs. G. Rudramma, AIR 2000 A.P. 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 of possession. In the first case, i.e. “followed by delivery” possession cannot be disjuncted from the basic source i.e. agreement to sell. Therefore, the expression followed by delivery of possession should have a direct nexus to the agreement and should be read in juxtaposition to the word ‘agreement’ and it cannot be independent or outside the agreement. Therefore, the delivery of possession should follow the agreement i.e. through the agreement. It takes in its sweep the recital in the agreement itself that delivery of possession is being handed over. It will also cover cases of delivery of possession contemporaneous with the execution of agreement, even if there is no specific recital in the agreement. In other words, the delivery of possession should be intimately and inextricably connecte