SYED JAHEER AHAMAD Vs. HAJI JANDAMANU YUSUF SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revision petitioner is the defendant in O. S. No. 21 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the III-Addl. District Judge (FTC), Anantapur. The said suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for specific performance of Agreement of sale, dated 14. 10. 2004, allegedly executed by the defendant/revision petitioner. Subsequently the sole plaintiff died and the respondents 2 to 9 herein were brought on record as his legal representatives.

(2.) THE defendant/revision petitioner filed a written statement in which the execution of agreement of sale was not disputed, but it was pleaded that the possession of the property was also delivered to the 1st plaintiff on the date of the agreement and to avoid stamp duty and registration the same was not mentioned in the agreement. It was also pleaded that taking advantage of delivery of possession, the plaintiff was postponing payment of sale consideration. During the trial, the Agreement of Sale dated 14. 10. 2004 was marked on behalf of the plaintiffs as Ex. A-1 subject to objection. While the matter was coming up for cross-examination of P. W. 1, the defendant filed i. A. No. 515 of 2008 with a prayer to decide the objection relating to stamp duty and penalty on Ex. A-1. The plaintiffs/respondents 2 to 9 herein filed a counter stating that the possession was delivered subsequent to execution of the agreement and therefore the objection raised by the defendant that the Agreement of Sale was not properly stamped was untenable. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 29. 12. 2008 dismissed I. A. No. 515 of 2008 holding that the dispute with regard to the date of delivery of possession of the schedule property has to be decided in the main suit after full-fledged trial. The said order dated 29. 12. 2008 is under challenge in this Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the objection that Ex. A-1 is not properly stamped has to be decided before proceeding further in the suit and such a question relating to the admissibility of the document on the ground of sufficiency of stamp duty cannot be postponed to be decided in the final judgment. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL v. STATE OF gujarat, PART 33 STATE, THROUGH SPECIAL CELL, NEW DELHI vs. NAVJOT SANDHU @ afshan GURU and ORS. , D. JOGANNA vs. U. CHAYADEVI and M. HARI NARAYANA @ HARI babu v. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY and COMMISSIONER AND INSPECTOR GENERAL of REGISTRATION AND STAMPS.