PONNAPOOLA SEETHA RAMAIAH Vs. SANAGALA SREENIVASULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 22-2-2012 in I.A.No.626/2011 in O.S.No.159/2010 on the file of the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore.

(2.) The respondent filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 7-3-2005. He filed the above mentioned I.A. to permit him to mark the said agreement of sale in evidence on his side. The petitioner/defendant filed a counter-affidavit opposing the same on the ground that the endorsement made on the back of the agreement of sale in question evidences delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold thereunder and therefore it requires stamp duty and registration under Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short "the Act"). However, the Court below has allowed the I.A. filed by the respondent/plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/defendant filed this Civil Revision Petition. A perusal of the order of the lower Court shows that it has relied upon the Judgments of this Court in Sri Lakshmi Housing Enterprises, Hyderabad Vs. Haji Begum and others, 2010 5 ALD 819 and Cheryala Srinivas Vs. Moola Sujatha and others, 2010 1 ALD 246 and held that since the possession of the property was not delivered at the time of entering into the agreement of sale, delivery of possession at a subsequent point of time does not render the agreement liable for registration and stamp duty.

(3.) In B. Ratnamala Vs. G. Rudramma, 2000 AIR(AP) 167a Division Bench of this Court has considered the Explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act and held that the words "followed by or evidencing delivery of possession" therein shall be construed as having a direct nexus to the agreement. The Division Bench further held that the said Explanation covers three situations, namely, where delivery of possession has occurred prior to entering of the agreement, under the agreement, or in pursuance of the agreement. The Division Bench also further held that the delivery of possession should be intimately and inextricably connected with the agreement. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the Judgment is reproduced hereunder: