M MADUSUDAN REDDY Vs. M KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.33 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda. He filed the suit against the respondents herein for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 9-1-2001. The trial of the suit commenced. The respondents sought to rely upon an agreement of sale dated 30-3-1989. The petitioner objected to the admissibility of the document on the ground that the said agreement is nothing but a sale deed and was subject to stamp duty under Section 47A Indian Stamp Act (for short 'the Stamp Act') as well as registration under the Indian Registration Act (for short 'the Registration Act'). The Trial Court received the same subject to objection, during the course of recording the evidence on 18-6-2003, and marked it as Ex.Bl. Hence this revision.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. Venkatram Reddy, submits that though the document is described as an agreement of sale, it witnessed the receipt of substantial portion of consideration and provided for payment of balance of consideration and delivery of possession at a specified time. According to him, the payment of balance of consideration and delivery of possession took place as provided for under the agreement and that being the case; it needs to be treated as a sale deed. One more contention advanced by him is that when the same document was sought to be pressed into service during the enquiry into IA No.268/2001 in the suit, the petitioner objected to the same and that the objection was sustained by the Trial Court through its order dated 10-1-2002. Relying upon several judgments rendered by this Court the learned Counsel submits that the nomenclature of document is not conclusive. He also places reliance upon Explanation 1 to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act.

(3.) Sri M. Rajmalla Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the document did not by itself evidence the delivery of possession, either anterior or subsequent to the date of its execution. It is his case that Explanation 1 to Article 47A of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act would get attracted, if only the Agreement/document evidenced delivery of possession and not otherwise. He too, had relied upon certain decided cases.