KONDU RAMACHANDER RAO Vs. AKULA SRINIVASA RAO (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendants 1 to 3 is directed against the order dated 31.01.2014 of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial passed in O.S.No.81 of 2009.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 ('the defendants 1 to 3', for short) and the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs ('the plaintiffs', for short). I have perused the material record.

(3.) TO begin with, the facts, which led to the filing of the present revision petition by the defendants 1 to 3, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiffs brought a suit against the defendants 1 to 3 and two others for declaration of title, particularly, the title of the 1 st plaintiff in respect of open land admeasuring 1815 square yards in Sy.No.315/A relating to Northern side part of H.No.26 -368 of Garmilla village, Mancherial Municipality, more fully described in the schedule annexed to the plaint and for declaration that the unregistered sale deed dated 10.08.1975 executed in favour of the 1 st defendant by one late Akula Ramakistaiah, the elder brother of 1 st plaintiff, is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for delivery of the suit schedule land to the plaintiffs and for other allied reliefs. The 1 st defendant having filed a written statement is resisting the suit. At trial, PW1 had tendered in his evidence, the agreement of sale -cum -General Power of Attorney (with possession) dated 24.08.2007 for being exhibited as exhibit A1. At that time, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants for exhibiting the said document on the ground that the said document is deficiently stamped being an agreement of sale with possession and that stamp duty has to be paid on the said document as per the provision in explanation 1 to Article 47 A of Schedule 1 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which came into force with effect from 01.04.1995, as per the amendment by the A.P. Act No.21 of 1995. When such objection was raised for marking the said document, the trial court had heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides and had passed the impugned order overruling the objection of the defendants and had confirmed the tentative marking as 'exhibit A1' given to the said document. The trial court while overruling the objection of the defendants had inter alia held that the said document is liable to stamp duty as an agreement of sale but not as an agreement of sale evidencing delivery of possession of the property. Therefore, the aggrieved defendants had filed this revision petition.