LAWS(APH)-2000-4-9

CHINTALAPUDI ANNAPURNAMMA Vs. ANDUKURI PUNNAYYA SASTRY

Decided On April 12, 2000
CHINTALAPUDI ANNAPURNAMMA Appellant
V/S
ANDUKURI PUNNAYYA SASTRY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned single Judge of this Court having found two decisions rendered by this Court in Gulam Hussain vs. Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad and N. Jagannadham vs. V. Mangamma conflicting with each other referred this Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to the Division Bench framing the question as below:

(2.) Having regard to the above question of law before us, it is necessary to narrate the facts in brief, which are as follows: The petitioners herein are the alleged lessees and the respondents are the alleged lessors. The respondents herein filed A.T.C.No. 42 of 1994 before the Special Officer under A.P. Tenancy Act against the petitioners seeking eviction from the suit land. During the enquiry, the petitioners sought to mark a lease deed dated 31-12-1984 said to have been executed by the respondents. The same was objected to by the respondents since the same was found to be insufficiently stamped and not registered. The trial Court assessed the stamp duty and penalty payable and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 9,905/-. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed I.A.No. 131 of 1996 praying the Court to send the alleged document (lease deed dated 31-12-1984)to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole for impounding and levying stamp duty taking a plea that the said document was a piece of crucial documentary evidence. The trial Court having held that it has power to impound the disputed document, imposed duty and penalty and dismissed the I.A. without sending the document to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said order was confirmed by the District Judge in A.T.A-No. 22 of 1996. Hence, the revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners while relying on the Judgment of this Court in N. Jagannadham vs. V. Mangamma (supra), contends that when an application under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act is made seeking to send the document to the Revenue Divisional Officer for impounding, the Court has no option but to forward the same for impounding.