MEDIA ANASUYAMMA Vs. CHOPPELA LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us (Eswara Prasad, J), inasmuch as the correctness of the decision of Radhakrishna Rao, J. in A. Chandrasekhar v. R. Narasimha Reddy(1990) 1 ALT 264 was questioned before the learned Judge. The point relates to the retrospectivity of the Andhra Pradesh Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 (Act. 17/ 1986). Incidentally, the correctness of the decision of Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. in K. Obaiah v. T. Venkatamma, (1988) 2 ALT 435 : (AIR 1989 NOC 174) as to what is a 'case decided' also has arisen.

(2.) The petitioners in the revision are the defendants in O. S. No. 156 of 1981. The 1st defendant is the daughter of one Subbaiah. The plaintiff is the sister of Subbaiah. The plaintiff claimed the suit property under a registered settlement deed dated 25-8-1974. The 1st defendant contended that Subbaiah executed a registered settlement deed dated 23-5-1979 in her favour. The plaintiff's suit is for declaration of title and possession. During the course of the trial, the 1st defendant sought to file an unregistered deed dated 4-9-1959 said to be a Khararnama under which Subbaiah is said to have agreed to settle the suit property in favour of the 1st defendant in consideration of some other property said to have been given to him by 1st defendant. The plaintiff's counsel objected and relied upon the judgment of Radhakrishna Rao, J. above referred to.

(3.) The learned District Munsif felt bound by the said decision of Radhakrishna, Rao, J. for holding that the date of execution of the document was not the criterion for purpose of stamp duty and that the date of presentation of the document as evidence was relevant. He then held that under the latter part of Sec. 2(24)(c) an agreement to settle property was also liable to stamp duty and rejected the deed dated 4-9-1959 as inadmissible. It is this order that is questioned in this revision.