JANNUCHANDER BABU Vs. MANCHIKATLA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner filed O.S. No. 1122 of 2001 for injunction restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession over 230 Sq.Yds. in S.No.296 of Desaipet village, specified in the boundaries mentioned in the Schedule appended to the plaint, which hereinafter would be referred to as "the suit land", and filed IA No. 1372 of 2001 therein seeking an injunction, during the pendency of the suit, restraining the respondents and their men from interfering with his possession over the suit land. The contention of the respondents is that they purchased the suit land and its adjacent land from the revision petitioner and others and that they, but not the revision petitioner, are in possession of the suit land. Exs.P. 1 to P.4 on behalf of revision petitioner and Ex.R.1 on behalf of respondents were marked during enquiry. Both the Courts below concurrently held that revision petitioner is not entitled to the injunction sought. Hence this revision.

(2.) The contention of Sri J. Nataraja Sarma, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, is that the failure of the Courts below in marking the receipt produced by the revision petitioner acknowledging receipt of entire balance sale consideration from the revision petitioner, which also incidentally contains a recital regarding delivery of possession of the suit land, on a wrong assumption that it is not properly stamped as a sale deed as per Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, without keeping in view the fact that under the Stamp Act it is the instrument but not the transaction that is amenable to stamp duty. Placing strong reliance on the passage in para-10 of a Division Bench decision of this Court in B. Ratnamala v. G. Rudramma, 1999 (6) ALT 59 (DB) reading:

(3.) B. Ratnamala case (supra) was referred to a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court in view of the conflict between M.A. Gafoor v. Mohd. Jani and others, 1999 (1) ALT 596, and Mekapothula Linga Reddy (supra). The point for consideration in both those decisions was the applicability of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act to an agreement of sale. In Mekapothula Linga Reddy (supra) the agreement of sale, was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.20/-. After paying the balance due from him to the vendor as per the agreement, the purchaser took possession of the property agreed to be sold and. obtained an endorsement to that effect on the reverse of the agreement. Answering the question whether such endorsement of delivery of possession need be stamped as a sale deed as contemplated by Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act in the affirmative, a learned single Judge held that Article 47-A is not confined to cases of delivery of possession immediately on execution of the agreement of sale, and would also cover cases where possession was delivered subsequent to the agreement of sale. The facts in M.A. Gafoor case (supra) are a little different. in that case a tenant in possession of the property entered into an agreement to purchase the same and obtained an agreement with a recital that he would pay rent to the vendor till the agreement of sale culminates into a deed of sale. Answering the question whether such agreement also need be stamped as a sale deed as per Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, a learned Single Judge held that Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act would apply only to cases of an agreement under which there is 'transfer of possession' from the vendor to the vendee and if there is no 'transfer of possession of the property agreed to be sold as in case where the vendee was already in possession of the property as a tenant, such agreement need not be stamped as a sale deed as per Article 47-A of Schedule-1A of Stamp Act. That decision in M.A.Gafoor case (supra) was overruled by a Division Bench in B. Ratnamala case (supra) holding that the expression "followed by" in Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act should be read in conjunction with "agreement", and as such any agreement of sale recording 'delivery of possession' would invite stamp duty as sale deed eventhough there is no 'actual transfer of possession', as in the case of a tenant continuing in possession of the demised premises even after agreement of sale. Though the Division Bench did not agree with the reasoning in Mekapothula Linga Reddy case (supra), it did approve the ratio in that decision that Article 47-A of Schedule 1 -A of Stamp Act would apply to cases of recording delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold subsequent to agreement of sale if such delivery of possession is "in pursuance of the agreement to sell. It is pertinent to note that in Mekapothula Linga Reddy case (supra), the learned Judge referred to the Statement ofObjects and Reasons of the Bill introducing Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of Stamp Act, that amendment is being made in order to provide payment of Stamp duty on agreements to sell at conveyance rate, when they are accompanied by delivery of possession of the property as parties are not getting the sale deeds registered by paying legitimate stamp duty.