APHC010649872023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3206]

AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 26/2024 Between:

N.S.Rama Devi, ...PETITIONER AND V Chitti Babu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA PATURI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR This Court made the following Order:

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.181 of 2024 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi for grant of permanent injunction over the suit schedule property, again the respondents herein. This suit came to be dismissed on 28.06.2022.

2. After the dismissal of the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.704 of 2023 for return of certain documents which had not been marked in the course of trial. However, this application was dismissed for the trial, by an order dated 11.08.2023. The trial had held that documents in serial number 4, 6 and 7 of the list furnished with the application, are unregistered and insufficiently stamped documents. The trial Court on the basis of the circular issued by this Court on 10.07.2006 in ROC.No.1628/SO/2005 had directed that whenever a document is liable to be impounded for stamp duty and penalty are filed before the Court, such documents cannot be returned to the party unless deficient stamp and penalty are paid.

3. On this basis, the trial Court refused to return the documents. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. As the respondents had already endorsed ―no objection‖

for the return of the documents, issue of notice to the respondents would only lead to further delay and expense for the respondents. To obviate such problems, this Court thought at fit to appoint Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, a learned Advocate of this Court, as Amicus of the Court, to assist the Court in this matter.

5. Sri P.S.P Suresh Kumar has placed certain judgments before this Court. These judgments can be put into two categories. Those for the preposition that such document can be returned and those for the preposition that such documents cannot be returned without payment of stamp duty etc.

6. The judgments holding that documents can be returned are ; K. Santhakumar vs. K. Suseela Devi1, C. Sreedhara Raja vs. S. Vittoba Rao, [AIR 2005 AP 322], Lokara Om Kumar vs. Baikan Satyanarayana and Ors.,, [2006 (5) ALD 91] K. Sivakanth Reddy and Ors vs. Ramanjaneyulu and Ors.

7. The judgments which hold that it may not be appropriate to return the same are Miss Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs. Miss. P. Gunavath, [AIR 2013 Karnataka 52]. A judgment on a connected issue as to the stamp duty payable for agreement of sale which is followed by delivery of possession or which records delivery of possession is reported in B. Ratnamala vs. G. Rudramma, [AIR 2000 AP 167]

Consideration of the Court:

8. In K. Santhakumar vs. K. Suseela Devi‘s case a learned Single Judge of the Court was considering the exigibility of stamp duty on an agreement of sale and whether documents produced in that case were deeds of sale or agreements to sell. The subsidiary

1 AIR 1961 AP 424:1961 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 425

4 AIR 2008 AP 4.

issue that arose in that case was whether a Court should collect stamp duty and penalty at a stage even before the time of admission of evidence. The learned Single Judge, after considering judgments of the Hon‘ble High Court of Madras had held that collection of stamp duty should not be done before the stage of admissibility of the document in evidence. The learned Single Judge, while laying down this principle, also took into account a situation where a party pays penalty for stamping of the document and such document is not admitted in evidence, the party would not have a chance of refund also and would cause undue hardship.

9. In C. Sreedhara Raja vs. S. Vittoba Rao‘s case, a learned Single Judge of this Court while consi