2IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.7106 of 2018 DATE: 06.03.2026 Between Mrs. Mahroounnisa Begum and 4 others …Petitioners AND Y. Anthi Reddy and 4 others …Respondents

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Order dated 20.08.2018 in I.A.No.2588 of 2018 in O.S.No.523 of 2012 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu Ratnam, learned counsel representing Sri M.V. Durga Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri Suresh Bhaktula learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the entire material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as, as they are arrayed before the Trial Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who are revision petitioners herein filed a suit seeking recovery of amount.

5. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 filed I.A.No.2588 of 2018 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to impound the Memorandum of Understanding Cum Agreement of Sale dated 22.04.2009 by sending it to the concerned authorities, which is required for registration and payment of stamp duty.

6. The respondents therein filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in I.A.No.2588 of 2018 and contending that the Memorandum of Understanding Cum Agreement of Sale dated 22.04.2009 does not require any registration and also any penalty and it is properly stamped and the Article 6B of the Indian Stamp and Registration Act does not attract the Memorandum of Understanding Cum Agreement of Sale dated

22.04.2009.

7. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court have came to the conclusion that the document Memorandum of Understanding referred to is in two parts, as mentioned above, under clause 18(6) and (7). The recitals cannot be split up for a part and the office having put up note on the document that there is a deficit stamp duty and penalty payable. Therefore, it is a fit case to send the document for impounding by the proper authority before it is received in evidence, as the suit is based on Memorandum of Understanding dated 22.04.2009 and finally, the petition was allowed as prayed.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed on the ground that the trial Court failed to see that whether the document is chargeable for stamp duty or penalty and the entire document has to be looked into and the document falling within Article 6 (C) of Schedule 1-A, which prescribes only Rs.100/- as required stamp duty. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner therein cannot be sustained and it was insufficiently stamped. Therefore, the chargeability of the document is not dependent on the plea of the defendant in the written statement or the plea of the plaintiff in the suit regarding the performance of the agreement and the learned trial Court passed the impugned order entirely on extraneous and irrelevant considerations. The learned trial Court failed to see that the stamp duty of penalty which is calculated by the office note is not with reference to any provision in the Stamp Act and Article 6 does not levy stamp duty of 1% in the office note is baseless and without reference to any statutory provision and an agreement of sale which is simpliciter in respect of an immovable property. The learned trial Court gravely committed an error in saying that, "the document memorandum of understanding referred to is in two parts, as mentioned above under clauses 18 (6) and (7). The recitals cannot be split up for a part and failed to see that it is not the case of the respondent, third defendant that the document falls under two descriptions covered by two different articles and therefore the question of splitting the recitals did not arise and the entire document has to be construed for the purpose of find