B RATNAMALA Vs. G RUDRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is before us on a reference made by our learned brother- B.S. Raikote, J.,-differing with the view taken by another learned single Judge of this Court in M.A. Gafoor vs. Mohd. Jani and others as to the interpretation of Explanation I to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short "the Act").

(2.) A few facts which are germane for answering the reference are: Thepetitioner had filed a suit in O.S.No. 15 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Kurnool seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 14-11-1988 which Was marked as Ex. A-1 during the trial. On the objection taken by the respondent-defendant by filing an application in LA. No.232 of 1988 seeking to impound the said document and levy stamp duty and penalty as a sale deed under Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the trial Court allowed the said application overruling the objection taken by the plaintiff-petitioner herein as to the permissibility of the said objection once the document is marked under Section 35 of the Act and held that the said document is insufficiently stamped and directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty on Ex.A-1 or otherwise it was held that the document becomes inadmissible in evidence. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff carried the matter in revision before this Court.

(3.) The document recites that the possession of the schedule mentionedproperty was previously delivered to the vendee. It is also stated therein that the entire sale consideration has already been received.