The agreement of sale for agricultural land is governed by Article 6-A of the Indian Stamp Act, rejecting the trial Court's determination under Article 6-B.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2021 in I.A.No.561/2021 in O.S.No.108/2015 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the revision petitioner/plaintiff herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court, who filed a suit against the defendant seeking the following relief:

(i) direct the defendant to execute registered sale deed in respect of suit property i.e., Sy.No.213/E and 214/E total admeasuring Ac.2:00 guntas situated in the limits of Chowdarguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District by receiving balance sale consideration.

(ii) alternatively direct defendant to refund Rs.2,14,000/- (advance amount + interest) with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

(iii) Costs of suit.

(iv) Pass such other order or orders as the Court deems fit in the interest of justice.

3. Pending the suit, during the course of evidence, the learned Judge of the trial Court impounded the subject document, collected the requisite stamp duty along with penalty, and marked the same as Ex.A1, treating it as an agreement of sale.

4. Being aggrieved by the marking of the said document, the defendant filed an application under Order XIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in I.A. No.561 of 2021 in O.S. No.108 of 2015, praying the trial Court to reject the document marked as Ex.A1 and to de-exhibit the same on the ground that the plaintiff had the agreement of sale impounded by invoking Article 6-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act instead of Article 6-B, and that the document, having been insufficiently stamped, is liable to be impounded.

5. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and contended that the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A1 was properly stamped and impounded in accordance with Articles 6-A and 6-C of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, that Article 6-B has no application to the said document, and accordingly prayed the trial Court for dismissal of the petition.

6. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court opined that the subject document falls under Article 6-B of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act and accordingly allowed the petition, granting liberty to the respondent/plaintiff to make good the deficit stamp duty and penalty as per Article 6-B within fourteen days from the date of the impugned order, failing which the agreement of sale marked as Ex.A1 was directed to be de-marked.

7. Assailing the impugned order, the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff contending that the order passed by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and settled principles of law, inasmuch as the learned trial Judge, having once exercised jurisdiction under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act by impounding the document, collecting the requisite stamp duty and penalty, and marking the same as Ex.A1, became functus officio and had no jurisdiction to subsequently revisit the nature of the document or direct payment of additional stamp duty under a different Article.

8. It is further contended that the agreement of sale in question does not attract Article 6-B of Schedule I-A, as it is an agreement of sale simpliciter relating to agricultural and open land, without delivery of possession either expressly or impliedly, and therefore is properly chargeable under Article 6-A. Once the document was admitted in evidence, its admissibility could not have been questioned at a later stage in view of the statutory bar under Section 36 of the Indi