Agreements of sale must be duly stamped to be admissible in evidence; insufficiently stamped documents are invalid if they do not confer actual possession.

ORDER :

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 15.07.2025, dismissing I.A.No.56 of 2025 in O.S.No.48 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, filed by the defendant under Order XIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. read with Sections 35 & 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to demark exhibit A1, suit agreement of sale, dated 01.02.2013.

2. The case of the petitioner/defendant, in brief, is as follows:

The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit against the revision petitioner/defendant seeking specific performance of Ex.A1, suit agreement to sell, dated 01.02.2013, executed by the defendant. During cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that he had taken possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of Ex.A1 and thus, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The agreement of sale was executed on stamp papers worth Rs.100/- and such a document cannot be admitted in evidence without collecting stamp duty and penalty by impounding the document. An agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession of the property is chargeable. As per the explanation-1 to Article 47-A of the Schedule –I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Ex.A1 needs to be stamped as a regular sale deed. Since Ex.A1 is not duly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence. It is just and necessary to order demarking of Ex.A1, suit agreement of sale, as it is unregistered and insufficiently stamped.

3. The respondent No.2 filed a counter opposing the petition and stating that possession was not delivered under the agreement of sale; that the affidavit filed by way of chief examination is totally silent as to delivery of possession of the schedule property; that the petitioner/defendant gave permission to develop the land and the same cannot be said to be delivery of possession; that the agreement of sale was marked as Ex.A1 on 06.08.2018 and so the petitioner cannot now raise objection as regards its admissibility; that as the objection was not raised at the time of marking, the petitioner waived his right to object; that demarking Ex.A1 is not permissible; and that the petition is filed only to delay the proceedings.

4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that mere condition that the plaintiff can go for conversion of the land and lay layout with proper approval for making house plots cannot be considered as conveying absolute possession and the suit agreement of sale is not liable to be impounded with stamp duty and penalty.

5. Aggrieved thereby, this revision was preferred by the defendant.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in Vanapalli Jayalaxmi @ Venkata Jayalaxmi Vs. A. Kondalarao and others , 2014 (1) ALT 356 (S.B.)

7. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition as there was no actual delivery of the property giving effective possession under the agreement of sale. In this regard, he referred to the decision of this High Court in Nellore Sujanamma Vs. Desireddy Somasekhar Reddy , 2023 (4) ALT 384 , wherein, under the circumstances in the present case similar to the facts in that case, it was held that there was no actual delivery of possession under the agreement of sale and that the delivery was only for the purpose of division of property into plots while retaining the actual possession by the vendor.

8. Article 47-A of Schedule- IA of the Stamp Act states as follows:

“47-A. Sale as defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 —

(a) in respect of property