2022 Supreme(AP) 1259

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Bandaru Syamsunder, J.
Vayyeti Srinivasa Rao – Appellant
Versus
Gaineedi Jagajyothi – Respondent
C.R.P. No. 551 of 2017
Decided On : 20-12-2022

The marking of a document is not the same as admitting it in evidence. Marking a document merely means that it has been produced before the Court and noted in the record, while admitting a document in evidence means that the Court has accepted it as proof of the facts stated in it.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - AGREEMENT OF SALE - ADMISSIBILITY - MARKING OF DOCUMENT - ADMISSION OF DOCUMENT - DISTINCTION - STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY - LIABILITY - CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT - RELEVANCE - NOMENCLATURE OR PLEADINGS OF PARTIES - IRRELEVANCE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent, seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale, dtd. 14/10/2009, directing the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of plaint schedule house property with an alternative relief of refund of advance amount of Rs.6,50,000.00 with interest with a relief of injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property, pending disposal of the suit. When the suit was coming up for trial, the petitioner filed his chief-examination affidavit in the suit as PW.1, on 27/11/2015. Then on 21/3/2016, the petitioner as PW.1 was sworn in. In further chief-examination, Ex.A1 unregistered agreement of sale, dtd. 14/10/2009 marked subject to proof and relevancy of document. Ex.A2 office copy of legal notice, dtd. 8/4/2013, Ex.A3 postal acknowledgment and Ex.A4 reply notice, dtd. 4/5/2013 marked in his evidence which is noted in chief-examination. It appears that on 21/3/2016, the colleague of counsel for the respondent and counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff were present and after marking the said documents, the learned counsel for the respondent appeared before the Court, objected for marking of Ex.A1 agreement of sale on the ground that it is 'conveyance deed', though it is termed as 'agreement of sale' and it has to be treated as 'conveyance deed' and so stamp duty and penalty is to be paid and until and unless stamp duty and penalty is paid, the document cannot be marked and received in evidence. Then, the matter was adjourned to further date for hearing to hear with regard to admissibility of Ex.A1 and PW.1 was not cross-examined. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge by discussing the entire precedent law on subject with regard to Ex.A1 held that Ex.A1 agreement of sale is liable for stamp duty and penalty and directed the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty by 20/1/2017, failing which marking of document as Ex.A1 will be eschewed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Orders passed by the learned trial Judge that Ex.A1 agreement of sale is liable for stamp duty and penalty are sustainable, needs no interference of this Court, invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the Orders passed by the learned trial Judge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India? 2. Whether Ex.A1 agreement of sale is liable for stamp duty and penalty?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the marking of a document is not the same as admitting it in evidence. Marking a document merely means that it has been produced before the Court and noted in the record, while admitting a document in evidence means that the Court has accepted it as proof of the facts stated in it. 2. The Court held that in the present case, Ex.A1 was marked without giving the respondent an opportunity to object to its admissibility. Therefore, the marking of Ex.A1 did not amount to its admission in evidence. 3. The Court held that since Ex.A1 was not admitted in evidence, the trial Court was correct in holding that it was liable for stamp duty and penalty. 4. The Court also held that the contents of a document are the relevant consideration when deciding whether it is liable for stamp duty and penalty, not the nomenclature of the document or the pleadings of the parties.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition.