GOLLA AMARAVATHI Vs. GOLLA BHASKARA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I. A. No. 622 of 2001 in O. S. No. 252 of 1995, dated 25-7-2001, dismissing the application to call for the document Ex. A-7, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor, without impounding the same, to meet the ends of justice and also to avoid delay, the present Revision Petition is filed

(2.) THE case of the petitioner herein is that she purchased the suit schedule property, initially, under an agreement of sale Ex. No. A-7, dated 29-6-1989 and later obtained regular sale deed on 19-1-1995. Subsequently, the 1st respondent seemed to have filed a petition in the Insolvency Court, wherein the property purchased by her was also shown as owned by him. Hence she filed O. S. No. 252 of 1995, seeking permanent injunction not to take possession of the plaint schedule properties. During the trial, having marked the sale deed, she also tried to mark the Ex. A-7 (agreement of sale) to prove that she is in possession of the property since the year 1989 and at her instance, the Court impounded the document and levied a penalty of Rs. 7,111/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred eleven only ). But the petitioner having not been satisfied with the stamp duty and penalty levied by the Court, requested the Court to refer the document to the Collector, i. e. , R. D. O. , Chittoor in the instant case, for impounding the document under Section 38 (2) of the Indian Stamp Act. The R. D. O. , Chittoor valued the document as per the prevailing market value and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 23,004/- (Rupees Twenty three thousand and four only), for impounding the document. The petitioner filed an application to recall the document from the R. D. O. , Chittoor, without impounding the same, and it was dismissed.

(3.) THIS issue was squarely covered by two judgments of this Court. In S. Venkataramaiah v. Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. , 1967 (2) ALT 8 (NRC) it was held that the certificate given by the Revenue Authorities is conclusive under Section 40 of the Act and binding on the Civil Court and prevails over its decision on a question of admissibility on the ground of its being insufficiently stamped.