KARUMURI RAMATHEERTHAM Vs. TIPPAVATHI SESHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.09.2010, passed in O. S. No. 86 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge directed the petitioners/ plaintiffs to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale, dated 25.07.2001. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this revision by the petitioners/plaintiffs are: Thippavathi Venkata Ramaiah was the owner of the suit schedule property. The petitioners/ plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit schedule property from him under an agreement of sale, dated 25.07.2001, for Rs. 2,00,000/- and paid a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Thippavathi Venkata Ramaiah, who executed the agreement of sale, died. The 1st defendant is claiming the property of Venkata Ramaiah under a registered gift deed, dated 12.10.2001, said to have been executed by Venkata Ramaiah. The 1st defendant in the written statement pleaded that he executed a registered settlement deed on 30.01.2006 in favour of his son Venkta Subbaiah, who has been arrayed as 5th defendant. The defendants raised objection with regard to the admissibility of the sale deed (sic. agreement), dated 25.07.2001, on the ground that the document is not properly stamped. The learned Senior Civil Judge heard learning counsel appearing for the parties and proceeded to treat the agreement of sale, dated 25.07.2001, is coupled with the possession and therefore, it is required to be properly stamped and accordingly, directed the petitioners/plaintiffs to pay the stamp duty and penalty, by order, dated 20.09.2010. Relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:

(2.) Notice before admission came to be issued on 18.02.2011. The respondents/ defendants received notice and entered appearance through a counsel.

(3.) When the CRP came up for admission hearing on 15.08.2011, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents/ defendants. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ plaintiffs on that day, the revision was directed to be listed to this day under the caption "for orders". Despite the revision being listed under the caption "for orders", there is no representation on behalf of the respondents/defendants.