VELAGA VEERAIAH Vs. CHUKKAPALLI RAGHUNANDHA BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When a document, dated 06-06-1997, is sought to be introduced in evidence, an objection was taken that it is not properly stamped and so the trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, held that it is an agreement and so it has to be stamped as an agreement and it is liable for stamp duty and penalty as contemplated under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Aggrieved by that order the instant revision petition is preferred.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the document in question is only a receipt but not an agreement, and, so, the document, if at all, is liable to stamp duty, as a receipt and placed strong reliance on Surijimull Murlidhar v. Ananta Lal, AIR 1924 Madras 352 and A.Mohammed v. A.Mohamed, AIR 1966 Madras 359 where it is held that the intention of the parties and surrounding circumstances have to be taken into consideration for interpreting the document and contended that since the document is intended to be served only as a receipt, but not as an agreement, the order under revision is not sustainable.

(3.) There is no representation on behalf of the respondents, though served. The document in question reads: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_79_LAP_2007Image1.jpg</IMG> The above document evidences receipt of Rs.1,15,000/- towards sale consideration of a shop room of an area of 11 feet into 21 feet, and its executant agreeing to deliver the shop with shutters, wiring and flooring before February, 1998. The first part of the document is but a receipt. The second part relating to delivery of the shop room with shutters, wiring and flooring before February, 1998 is but an agreement. As per Section 6 of the Indian Stamp Act, when a document chargeable with duty falls within two or more descriptions of schedule 1 or schedule 1-A, as the case may be, it is chargeable with the highest of such duties. Since the document in question is both an agreement and receipt and since agreement attracts more Stamp duty, the document has to be stamped as an agreement as per schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act as amended in the Andhra Pradesh. Even according to the ratio in the two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners since the intention of the parties, as gathered from the document, is that the building should be delivered before February, 1998, it is but an agreement evidencing the terms agreed between the parties.