D RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. B VENKATA RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order passed in Check Slip No.27 of 1992 in O.S. No.28/91 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Rajam. The Court-fee Examiner while inspecting the Court pointed out that in para 3 of the plaint it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant received major portion of the consideration and that the plaintiff was put in possession of the plaint schedule house in the month of April, 1990 and the plaintiff is paying house-tax etc. Therefore, in his opinion the agreement is chargeable as sale by virtue of Explanation to Article 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended in the year 1986. This check slip petition was upheld by the lower Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the instrument itself is dated 30-3-1989 and the possession was given in April, 1990. Possession was not given in pursuance of the said agreement. Therefore, Explanation to Article 47-A does not apply.

(3.) I am unable to agree with his contention. The document is dated 30-3-1989. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession in pursuance of the said agreement, though possession was given at a later date, i.e., in April, 1990. This certainly evidences the delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold and comes within the ambit of Explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act as amended. In this view, I am fortified by a judgment of this Court in Mekapothula Linga Reddy vs. Durgempudi Gangi Reddy wherein it was held by my learned brother Sri S. Dasaradha Rama Reddy,}. as follows: