DUDEKULA ALLAUDDIN Vs. G SIVARAMAKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet in OS No. 119 of 2007 during the course of examination of PW1 on 27.7.2009 holding the agreement of sale dated 15.2.2006 to be admissible in evidence.

(2.) When the said agreement was attempted to be marked as Ex.A1 by the Counsel for the plaintiff, the Counsel for the 1st defendant objected to the same contending that there was delivery of property under the agreement consequently requiring payment of stamp duty as per amended Stamp Act, by which Explanation I to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A was introduced and as the document was not accordingly stamped, it is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be marked. The learned Counsel for the 1st defendant before trial Court referred to two precedents, in answer to which the learned Counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on three precedents referred to in the impugned order. The trial Court passed the impugned order after perusing the document in question, which recited that the vendor gave permission to the vendee for development activities, which cannot be said to be delivery of possession of the entire property to the purchaser. Following P. Laxminarayana v. Mukteswara Rao, 2009 4 ALD 59, the trial Court concluded the document to be admissible in evidence.

(3.) The point for consideration is whether the admission of the agreement of sale dated 15.2.2006 into evidence by the trial Court is, ex facie, improper or illegal ? Point: