TADI JAGANMOHANA REDDY Vs. KARRI SATYANARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/Plaintiff filed this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 16.02.2010 passed in O.S. No. 304 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, sustaining the objection taken by the Defendant with regard to marking of agreement of sale dated 1.11.2006 based on which the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale was filed.

(2.) The facts that gave raise to institution of this revision petition, are that the document, namely, agreement of sale dated 1.11.2006, which was sought to be marked, was written on the white paper affixed with adhesive stamps and was not executed by impressed stamp paper. When the same was sought to be marked the Defendant raised an objection. The said objection was sustained by the trial Court holding that Section (11) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act?) defines 'duly stamped'. Section 2(13) defines 'impressed stamp'. Rule 17 of the Indian Stamp Rules, 1925 (for short 'the Rules') defines Special Adhesive stamps to be used in certain cases and what instrument they can be used. The document in question, being an agreement of sale, is not included in the said Rule where adhesive stamps can be used. Further Rule 13 of the Rules provides as to and for what instrument adhesive stamps can be used, but the said Rule also do not include the agreement of sale, which is coming within the Article 6 of Schedule-IA of the Act. Therefore, the objections have to be sustained giving an opportunity to the Plaintiff to send it to the Collector for proper certification as required under Section 37 read with 18 of the Act.

(3.) Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that Sub-section 26 of Section 2 of the Act defines 'stamp', which means any mark, seal or endorsement by ay agency or person duly authorized by the State Government, and includes an adhesive or impressed stamp, for the purpose of duly chargeable under this Act. The said provision was inserted with effect from 10.09.2004. Therefore, the same can be treated as stamp as defined under Section 2(13) of the Act. Section 11 of the Act provides use of adhesive stamps. Rule 6 of the Rules provides every other instrument chargeable with duty shall, except as provided by Section 11 or by (Rules 10, 12 and 13), be written on paper on which a stamp of the proper value, not bearing the work "hundi" has been engraved or embossed. Rule 13(d) of the Rules provides instruments chargeable with duty under Articles 5(a) and (b) and 43 of Schedule I, Articles 5(a) and (b) and 38 of Schedule IA of Andhra Pradesh Stamp Rules. In view of the same, the adhesive stamps affixed on the agreement of sale comply with the statutory requirement, and rejection of the same by the lower Court is not at all correct.