ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 08.01.2024, passed in O.S.No.80 of 2018 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. O.S.No.180 of 2018 is filed by petitioners/plaintiffs for recovery of money of Rs.19,20,000/-. It was observed by the trial Court that when the plaintiffs intended to mark the sale deed dated 10.01.2017, an objection was raised by respondents/defendants stating the same cannot be marked as it is not sufficiently stamped and such the trial Court directed petitioners/plaintiffs to pay stamp duty and penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the trial court, petitioners/plaintiffs preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the sale deed dated 10.01.2017 is regarding movable properties and the suit wass filed for recovery of money. The trial Court ought to have rejected the contentions of respondents and ought to have allowed the petitioners to mark the document named as sale deed dated 10.01.2017 and schedule property of the said document is for movable property i.e., machinery. Therefore, he requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners relied upon a decision in Writ Petition Nos.2356 and 2357 of 1976 passed by the A.P.State Board of Revenue, Andhra Pradesh High Court , in which it was held that the subject matter of W.P.No.2357 of 1976, the total consideration for the sale of movable and immovable properties is Rs.2,61,000/- of which Rs.1,10,000/- represents the consideration of the sale of immovable property and Rs.1,51,000/- of movable property. Stamp duty was paid on a consideration of Rs.1,10,000/- referable to the sale of immovable property.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners further contended that when sale deed was executed for both movable and immovable properties, it was specifically directed to pay stamp duty on the amount spent on immovable property but not on movable property.

7. Learned counsel for respondents relied upon a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vengalapudi Manga Vs paluri Kannabbai and Others , in which it was held as follows:

What is collateral purpose has been explained by the Apex Court as well as this court in various decisions. As per the well-settled principle of law, any purpose other than the one which relates to establishment of title to the property can be treated as collateral.

8. On 13.01.2017, Respondents approached the petitioners and promised to pay an amount of Rs.19,20,000/- within 45 days i.e., on or before 02.03.2017 and executed an undertaking deed dated

13.01.2017, but they failed to pay the amount. The suit is filed for recovery of money along with interest. As the sale deed is executed only for movable property, the question of paying stamp duty and penalty does not arise. Therefore, this court finds that the order of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court dated 08.01.2024 in O.S.No.180 of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 02.07.2024 CHS