KARRI CHINNA RAO Vs. TIPPALA APPALA NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff Sri K Sarva Bhouma Rao and learned counsel for respondents-defendants Sri D.L.Kiran Prakash. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

(2.) Suit was instituted praying to grant specific performance of agreement of sale and to execute registered sale deed for the suit schedule property. Plaintiff intended to mark agreement of sale/sale deed dated 15.2.1997. Objection was raised by the defendants on admissibility of said document contending that it was insufficiently stamped. Trail Court by order dated 25.2.2011 held that agreement of sale requires payment of stamp duty and registration for being marked in evidence and directed listing of the matter on 5.3.2011 for stamp duty and penalty. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that in the suit for specific performance, the agreement of sale is crucial document. In view of proviso appended to Section 49 ( C) of the Indian Registration Act 1908 (for short the Act, 1908), in a suit for specific performance unregistered/not duly stamped agreement of sale/sale deed can be admitted in evidence. He would therefore submit that trial Court erred in holding that it requires payment of stamp duty and registration. In support of the said contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in K.Ramamoorthi Vs C.Surendranatha Reddy, CRP No. 1623 of 2012 dt 27.7.2012 R.Suresh Babu V.G Rajalingam and others, CRP No. 4066 of 2016 dt 30.11.2016 Gankidi Venkateshwar Reddy Vs. Podem Veeraiah and others, 2016 6 ALT 594 Attirala Chinnamma Vs.Gummadi Ravindraiah, 2009 2 ALD 305 Sardar Ram Singh Vs. Sardar Ram Singh and another, 2004 4 ALD 735 Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy Vs. Kasi Reddy Chinnamma, 2001 1 ALD 349 and decision of Supreme Court in S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Sopmasundaram and others, 2010 5 SCC 401.