O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.02.2023 dismissing I.A.No.78 of 2023 in O.S.No.479 of 2013 on the file of the court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur filed by the plaintiffs under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act to send the unregistered possessory agreement dated 02.06.2000 for collecting deficit stamp duty and penalty.

2. The plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance of the agreement by executing regular registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs no.1 to 3, based on the document sought to be impounded. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property was devolved on Pothabathina Ramaiah and Pothabathina Venkateswarlu under an oral partition and that Pothabathina Venkateswarlu remained a bachelor and died on 31.05.2000 and further that the plaintiffs had to accept the Will dated 30.07.1998 propogated by the first defendant that it had been executed by late Pothabathina Vekateswarlu, as the dispute arose before the elders of the village shortly after his death. The plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs and the second defendant for a bill contract of Rs.30,000/- and executed a possessory agreement dated 02.06.2000 in favour of the plaintiffs and the second defendant and accordingly the possession of the property was delivered and thereby the plaintiffs and the second defendant divided the total extent of 300 square yards into four equal shares after the death of their mother and continuing to be in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares, but the first defendant was postponing to execute registered sale deed as and when the plaintiffs and the second defendant requested and that the plaintiffs had come to know about the pendency of a suit in O.S.No.578 of 2012 on the file of the court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur when the plaintiffs questioned the first defendant and thereafter they got issued legal notice to the defendants on 23.01.2013 for which the first defendant gave reply with false allegations and the second defendant remained silent on receipt of the notice.

3. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs filed the petition in I.A.No.78 of 2023. The first respondent/first defendant filed counter mainly stating that the said agreement is possessory agreement only and not possessory agreement of sale and that there is no description of the schedule property and the document cannot be impounded as an agreement of sale.

4. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition observing that it is not an agreement of sale, but a mere possessory agreement as there is no recital regarding sale of the property.

5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. Pending the petition, since the second respondent died, the respondents no.3 and 4 have been brought on record, but they have not made any appearance.

6. Heard the learned counsels for the revision petitioners and the first respondent.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the nomenclature of the document does not decide its nature and that the content in the document that the executant had received Rs.30,000/- towards full settlement indicates passing of sale consideration and so the document can be treated as an agreement of sale and be impounded for collection of the necessary stamp duty and penalty. The learned counsel for the first respondent supported the observations of the trial Court.

8. Perused the document sought to be impounded.

9. After describing the parties to the document as person executing and the persons in whose favour the document is executed, the schedule of the property is described as vacant site annexed to tiled house bearing door No.3-60 having two rafters and three rooms in Yanamadala village and it is further stated that the executant had voluntarily delivered possession of the above said property to