DHUMTHI EKAMBARESWARAPPA Vs. T SHAMBULINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 13-12-2007. The matter is coming up for admission today.

(2.) HEARD Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Nagesh learned counsel representing Respondent No. 2. It is stated that notice had been served on Respondent No. 1 and none represents on behalf of respondent No. 1.

(3.) SRI J. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the trial Court erred in construing the agreement of sale as sale deed in terms of Article 47-A, Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The learned counsel would also maintain that the trial Court should have seen that the suit is for specific performance, wherein specific prayer relating to recovery of possession also had been prayed for. Further the learned counsel would maintain that when document itself does not speak of any delivery of possession either at the time of execution or any time thereafter, it cannot be held that such document is liable for stamp duty as regular sale deed. Counsel would also maintain that the trial Court erred in directing the payment of Stamp duty and Penalty by taking into account a statement said to have been made by the party in yet another proceeding and the counsel would maintain that the recitals of the document and the pleadings in question alone to be looked into for the purpose of deciding this question.