THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2067 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners -

defendant Nos.1 to 5 seeking to set aside the order in O.S. No.11 of 2021 dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet (for short ‘Trial Court’).

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Janardhan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, and perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as in O.S. No.11 of 2021.

4. The impugned docket order dated 09.06.2025 was passed by the Trial Court as objection was raised by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners for marking of agreement of sale dated 17.01.2018, contending the document requires deficit stamp duty and penalty and cannot be marked. The Trial Court noted that initially objection was raised regarding the admissibility of the document for registration, and the order dated 27.09.2024 was passed by the Trial Court, wherein, it was held that agreement of sale does not require any registration as saleable rights were not given to the purchasers under the document and they were only given authorization to divide the land into plots. Further, the Trial Court noted that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners preferred C.R.P. No.3460 of 2024 before this Court, which was dismissed by the order dated 11.11.2024 holding that document is an agreement without possession and it does not require any registration. However, liberty was given to the defendant Nos.1 to 5 to raise objections about payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty on document before the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court relying upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.3460 of 2024 dated 11.11.2024 and also the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 5 held that the document i.e., agreement of sale is without any possession, and it does not require any stamp duty and penalty. It was also held that the agreement of sale is covered under Article 47A Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (for short ‘the Stamp Act’) and it was engrossed on Non- Judicial stamp papers of worth Rs.300/- and it does not require any further stamp duty.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners - defendant Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous, without considering well-established principle of law. The said agreement requires stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Stamp Act. The Trial Court failed to consider the judgments relied upon by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 - petitioners and failed to appreciate that specific recital in the agreement of sale that possession will be taken over by respondent No.1 - plaintiff and should convert the land into plots and sell them. It was also recited in the receipt dated 27.05.2018 that respondent No.1 - plaintiff paid second installment of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees one crore thirty lakhs only) to the defendant No.1 - petitioner No.1 herein, and it is crystal clear that possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff - respondent No.1 and liable to pay stamp duty and penalty.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - plaintiff submitted that in C.R.P. No.3460 of 2024 dated 11.11.2024, this Court affirmed that in the docket order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court and, it was held that possession was not handed over to the vendees under the agreement of sale and it does not require any registration to be marked as evidence.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 - plaintiff relied upon the following judgments, wherein, it was held as under:

In R. Venkatram Reddy v. Jetmoni Gouramma 1 (C.R.P.

No.1756 of 2010), it was held that:

“8. I have gone through the plaint averments. The respondent- plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that defendants handed over possession for survey and demarcat