ORDER :

This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29.09.2016 in I.A.No.1162 of 2014 in O.S.No.77 of 2011 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 7. Perused the record.

3. During the pendency of this revision, respondent No.1 died and his legal representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos.4 to 7.

4. The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of oral contract against respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement. While so, respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.1162 of 2014 under Section 33 read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Stamp Act”) to impound the documents i.e. acknowledgments/receipts dated 08.04.2010 and 16.04.2010 filed by the petitioner herein on the ground that they sought to be utilized as “instrument” for proving the plea of the alleged relinquishment. As such, the said documents would have to be constituted as ‘Deeds of Conveyance’ as defined under Section 2 (10) of the Stamp Act and both the documents are chargeable to stamp duty under schedule 1-A of Article 20 of the said Enactment. The petitioner filed counter stating that there is misunderstanding of ‘Acknowledgments/Receipts’ as Undertaking-cum-Receipts and attempted to portray them as instruments of conveyance, which is not at all correct, as such, there is no need of impounding of the documents. On consideration of the material on record, the trial Court allowed the application. The last paragraph of the said order reads as under:

“That intention of the parties clearly release the property in three suits for impounding the acknowledgment receipts, dated 08.04.2010 and 16.04.2010 are liable for stamp duty and penalty as per Article 20 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act.

Challenging the said order, the present revision is filed.

5. Besides filing the written arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed error in interpreting the acknowledgment or receipt as conveyance under the Transfer of property Act and ordering impounding of the subject documents for stamp duty and penalty. He further submits that there is no conveyance, only relinquishment of right for share in partition. He further submits that the impugned order suffers from infirmity. As such, he prays to set aside the same. He placed reliance on the following precedents:

1. Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao v. Registrar of Assurances, Guntur, CDJ 1985 APHC 141.

2. Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha, CDJ 2008 SC 1689

3. Secretary, Board of Revenue v. S.S.Sankaranarayana Reddiar, Laws (KER) 1981 (7) 55

4. K.Sambasivaraju v. M.V.S.R.Chandrayya Chetty, AIR 1967 Andhra Pradesh 87.

6. Besides filing written arguments, per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supporting the impugned order submits that since undertaking-cum-receipts sought to be utilized as instruments to prove the plea of alleged relinquishment, the said undertaking-cum-receipts would have to be constituted ‘Deeds of Conveyance’. As such, the trial Court has not committed any error. He placed reliance on the following precedents.

i) Gopi Krishna Trivedi v. Sudama Prasad Ojha, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 355

ii) Kothuri Venkata Subba Rao v. Registrar of Assurances, Guntur, AIR 1986 Andhra Pradesh 42

7. The petitioner filed suit for specific performance of oral contract seeking direction to defendant No.1 to receive the balance contractual amount of Rs.24,50,000/- in terms of contract and to sign the Memorandum of Compromise settling his share in the suits for partition bearing O.S.No.121 of 1997, O.S.No.122 of 1997 and O.S.No.67 of 1997 on the file of II Senior Civil Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad now pending in S.L.P.No.2516/2005 and 2517/2005 alternatively his share in properties claimed in the above suits having been fully settled and