The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.1899 of 2024

Order:

This is a Revision Petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge at Khammam, in I.A.No.9 of 2023 in I.A.No.485 of 2017 in O.S.No.134 of 2015, wherein, a petition filed under Section 151 of CPC for recording further examination in chief and marking the suit agreement on behalf of the petitioner herein, has been dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Pooja Mahendra, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff and Aravala Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed suit for specific performance of Agreement of sale dated 14.07.2015. The Agreement of sale was executed on stamp papers worth Rs.200/- and possession was delivered to the petitioner herein by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. On a petition filed vide I.A.No.485 of 2017, the suit agreement was sent to the District Registrar, Khammam for collection of required stamp duty and penalty vide letter dated 02.02.2018. The District Registrar informed that the suit agreement was chargeable with duties determined under the Stamp Act at Rs.8,99,730/- and five times penalty to be levied at Rs.44,98,650/-, on suit property valued at Rs.1,49,95,500/- and directed to pay said amount within three days. The petitioner had learnt that defendant Nos.1 and 2 alienated the suit land to defendant No.3 through registered sale deed document bearing No.7856 of 2016. In that regard, I.A.No.2186 of 2019 was filed to implead defendant No.3 and the same was allowed. The certified copy of sale deed document bearing No.7856 of 2016 shows that possession was delivered to respondent No.3 for development purpose. Currently, the suit land is in possession of respondent No.3 and there is no need for him to pay stamp duty and penalty. The petitioner filed memo dated 29.12.2023 stating that he has submitted a representation to the District Registrar about Section 17(2) (v) of the Registration Act. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 denied obligation to pay stamp duty and penalty as contemplated under the Indian Stamp Act alleging that the same depends upon the recitals. The petitioner herein pleaded that as per Section 17(2)(v) of the Registration Act and decisions in Javvadi Koteswara Rao v. Sonti Sambasiva Rao [2004(4) ALT 614] and R. Suresh Babu v. G. Rajalingam [(2017) 1 ALT 668], the suit agreement does not require any stamp duty and penalty and petition needs to be allowed.

4. Section 17(2) of the Registration Act indicates documents that are exempted for registration. Section 17(2)(v) makes it clear that any document other than documents specified in sub-section (1A) except an agreement of sale as mentioned in clause (g) of sub-section 9(1) which does not in itself create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right, title or interest in immovable property, but merely creating a right for obtaining another document is exempted under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The petitioner pleaded that the Court has to determine whether the suit agreement requires stamp duty and penalty but not the District Registrar. It is the Court which has to send the document to the District Registrar under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act. No District Registrar adjudicates upon the issue and pass appropriate orders. It is held that the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the District Registrar and therefore, his request to exhibit the Agreement of sale cannot be considered. The petition is dismissed with a direction to send the agreement of sale to the District Registrar to deal with it under Section 40 of the Stamp Act and to return the same to the Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition is preferred.

5. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the proviso to Section 49 o