ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders dated

22.07.2022 passed in O.S.No.77 of 2017 by the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rahamahendravaram.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.77 of 2017 filed for permanent and mandatory injunctions. When the petitioners sought to mark Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.08.2015 and Additional Agreement dated 20.12.2015, the trial Court declined to mark those documents for want of sufficiency of stamp duty and passed the impugned orders. Questioning the correctness of the orders, this Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

3. Heard Sri A.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T.Sai Surya, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Sri A.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, the trial Court failed to observe that pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 25.08.2018 (1st document sought to be marked), the parties have entered into a registered Development Agreement-cum-General power of attorney dated 22.09.2015 and only to resolve the differences cropped up, the supplementary agreement dated 20.12.2015 came to be executed between the parties and thus the said agreement dated 20.12.2015 being sequel to the earlier registered development agreement, no stamp duty is payable, since the entire stamp duty has already been paid on the registered development agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the documents now sought to be marked are related to the registered development agreement and all the three documents are in relation to the same subject property, no further stamp duty is payable. Further, since the agreement dated 20.12.2015 sought to be marked does not fall within the purview of Article 6(B) of Schedule-1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, since it only stipulates exchange of plots registered in the name of the respondent on refund of deposit kept with the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that stamp duty need not be paid on the deposit amount referred to in the agreements and the suit being for permanent as well as mandatory injunctions, the documents can be marked for collateral transactions without insisting for payment of stamp duty. However, the trial Court upon erroneous view of the facts of the case as well as law applicable, passed the impugned order, which does not stand for legal scrutiny. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the orders impugned.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on K.Sudhakar Reddy v. Sudha Constructions (Andhra Pradesh)1, M/s. Vertex Homes Pvt.Ltd. vs. The District Registrar (Registration & Stamps), Government of A.P.2 and Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy vs. Kasi Reddy Chinnamma3.

5. On the other hand, Sri T.Sai Surya, learned counsel for the respondents, would submit that, since the proposed documents create and modify the rights in immovable property, they are liable to be stamped and registered and the mere reference to the earlier Development Agreement- cum-General Power of Attorney will not change the character of the present documents and the trial Court had rightly rejected to receive the documents in evidence. The subject documents falls under Article 6(A) of Schedule-1A of the Stamp Act and accordingly they are to be stamped. There are no valid and justifiable grounds warranting interference of this Court.

1. 2012(2)ALT 93

2 . Writ Petition No.18951 of 2007, dated 11.10.2007

3 . 2001(1) ALT 524 (S.B.)

In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on Master K.Geet Ankit v. M/s. Sai Sri Builders, rep. by M.

Anantha Narsaiah and another4.

6. The facts emanate from the record would indicate that when the documents styled as ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ and ‘Supplementary agreement’ were sought to be marked in the suit, the trial Court rejected