N S RAMANJAIAH SETTY Vs. T KRISHNA BHAGAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 6-1-2012 in I.A. No. 95/2011 in O.S. No. 7/2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur. Respondent No. 1 filed the above mentioned suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29-9-2007 against respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff has produced the said document on 27-4-2010 and the same was marked as Ex.A-1. Initially, the suit was filed against respondent No. 2 as the sole defendant. As respondent No. 2 has stated in his written statement that the suit schedule property was sold to the petitioner, the latter was impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. By the time the petitioner was impleaded, the suit document was marked as Ex.A-1. After his impleadment, the petitioner has filed the above mentioned I.A. for impounding Exs.A-1 and A-4 as the said documents require payment of stamp duty and penalty. The lower Court, while holding that Ex.A-1 is only an agreement of sale and not a bond as pleaded by the petitioner/defendant No. 2, also held that Ex.A-4 could be admitted into evidence for collateral purpose. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 2 feeling aggrieved by the order of the lower Court to the extent it relates to Ex.A-1.

(2.) At the hearing, Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court below has committed a serious error in construing Ex.A-1 as an agreement of sale and not as a bond. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition of bond in Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short "the Act") and relied upon the Judgment of this court in P. Srinivasa Babu Vs. M/s.A.M.R. Consultants Limited, 2008 4 ALT 759

(3.) Sri R.V. Nagabhushana Rao, learned counsel appearing for Sri R. Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, stated that while the lower Court has not committed any error in construing Ex.A-1 as an agreement of sale, he has however stated that since under Section 36 of the Act there is an absolute bar on the raising of any objection over a document which is admitted in evidence, the petitioner is not entitled to raise the objection.