The main legal point established in the judgment is that the actual delivery of possession and the purpose of the delivery are crucial factors in determining the applicability of stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act,1899.

ORDER :

1. Defendant in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated 08.11.2022 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 on the file of Principal District Judge, Nellore.

2. Plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.27 of 2014 seeking the following relief:

“Directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees within the time stipulated by the Hon’ble Court regarding the ‘B’ schedule property and deliver possession of the same to the plaintiff and if the defendant fails to do so, the same may be done through process of law and grant costs”.

3. (a) In the plaint, it was contended interalia that plaint ‘A’ schedule property is a joint family property of defendant and her elder son Venkata Ranga Reddy and Srikar Reddy. They divided their property under a registered partition deed dated 09.07.2010. ‘A’ schedule mentioned property in the partition deed fell to the share of defendant and her elder son Venkata Ranga Reddy. ‘B’ schedule property referred in partition deed fell to the share of Srikar Reddy. The elder son executed a registered settlement deed dated 10.11.2010 in relation to his half share in favour of defendant. Thus, the defendant became absolute owner of property. The schedule property mentioned in the agreement is an extent of 2730 Ankanams, though it is mentioned as Ac.6.00 cents of land, which is fit for house sites with specific boundaries. Regarding delivery of property, it was mentioned in the plaint that defendant handed over land to the plaintiff for laying house plots, roads, tree guards, electricity and drainage. Plaintiff invested huge amount for that purpose.

(b) It was further alleged in the plaint that defendant sold some of the plots through the plaintiff and retained some plots to herself and failed to execute sale deeds for the plots mentioned in B schedule property in favour of plaintiff’s nominees. Eventually the suit was filed for specific performance and delivery of possession of property.

4. Defendant filed written statement and contended interalia that defendant granted temporary permission to the plaintiff to form layout roads, electricity, drainage connection to the respective plots. Defendant admitted about execution of agreement of sale dated 22.01.2011.

5. The suit is coming up for evidence. Plaintiff intended to mark the agreement of sale dated 22.01.2011. Objection was raised by defendant that agreement of sale dated 22.01.2011 requires stamp duty and penalty, since possession was delivered to the plaintiff under the document. Trial Court by order dated 08.11.2022 concluded that transfer of possession under agreement of sale dated 22.01.2011 is for limited purpose of laying roads and thereby it cannot be held as inadmissible document. Trial Court posted the suit to 19.01.2023 for examination of P.W.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed.

6. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.V.S.Suresh Kumar, learned senior counsel representing Sri S.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondent.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that recitals in the document would disclose delivery of possession of property and once recitals manifest delivery of possession, the document is liable to be stamped under Article 47A of Schedule-IA of the Indian Stamp Act,1899 (for short “the Act”). He would also submit that pleadings of the parties have no relevancy, and the Court has to look into the recitals of the document. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:

i) Tirumala Housing (P) Limited Vs. GPR Housing (P) Limited, 2006 (5) ALD 532.

ii) Vanapalli Jayalaxmi @ Venkata Jayalaxmi Vs. A.Kondalarao, S/o Satyam and others, 2014 (1) ALD 491.

iii) B.Ratnamala Vs. G.Rudramma, 1999 (6) ALD 160.

iv) Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, (2009) 2 SCC 532.

v) Omprakash Vs.Laxminarayan and others, (2014) 1 SCC 618.

8. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent would