PENKEY SURYAKANTHAM Vs. SHAIK SILLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8-2-2000 passed in O.S. No.313 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge sustained the objection raised by the respondent/defendant in respect of the disputed document dated 19-11 -1993 and endorsement thereon dated 25-9-1995 and held that the document can be admitted in evidence on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty and that the disputed document is sale and it comes within the purview of explanation (1) of Article 47-A Indian Stamp Act.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief giving raise to filing of this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff are as follows: The respondent/defendant is the owner of the suit schedule land. The plaintiff filed O.S. No.313/98 alleging that the respondent/defendant executed agreement of sale dated 19-11-1993 agreeing to sell the suit land for Rs.36,400/- and received Rs.29,400/- as advance sale consideration on the date of agreement itself and that he paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- on 25-9-1995 and got the payment endorsed on the agreement of sale. Since the respondent/ defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance. The respondent/ defendant disputed the agreement of sale. It is the case of respondent/defendant that the husband of the plaintiff took the suit land on lease in the year 1993 on a makta of 15 bags of paddy per year and that the plaintiff to knock away the property fabricated the agreement of sale and filed the suit

(3.) When the agreement of sale is sought to be marked through the evidence of P.W.I, the respondent/defendant raised objection that the agreement of sale is a deed of conveyance and it requires stamp duty under explanation (1) to Article 47-A of the Stamp Act. On hearing the Counsel for both the parties, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge held that the suit agreement is a conveyance deed and it comes within the ambit of explanation (1) to Article 47-A of Stamp Act and it cannot be admitted in evidence till deficit stamp duty and penalty is paid. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the plaintiff filed this Civil Revision Petition.