LAWS(APH)-1999-2-72

C RAMACHANDRA NAIDU Vs. M RAJAMMA

Decided On February 17, 1999
C.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU Appellant
V/S
M.RAJAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein was the plaintiff. He had instituted the suit against the defendants ie., the respondents herein, in O.S.No.301 of 1989 which is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The said suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24-4-1989 and also to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property.

(2.) On completion of formalities, the evidence commenced. The plaintiff produced the document i.e., agreement of sale, which was exhibited in the evidence. After few days, the plaintiff filed an application i.e., I.A. No.1332/97 under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with a prayer to send the agreement of sale to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati for levying and collecting stamp duty as it was inadequately stamped. The defendants-respondents herein filed their counter and resisted LA. No. 1332/97. The learned Judge heard the matter on merits and refused to send the agreement of sale to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned Counsel Mr.A.T.M.Rangaramanujam appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted at the Bar that the said application was made so as to avoid the difficulties which may arise at the time of execution of the decree. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel at the Bar that once the document is exhibited in evidence, the respondents i.e., the original defendants, did not raise any objection for exhibiting the document. It was further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the plaintiff realised that the agreement of sale on which the suit is based was inadequately stamped, the plaintiff himself filed I.A.No.1332/97 requesting the Court to send the document for impounding and collecting the deficit stamp. Under these circumstances, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order impugned has to be set aside directing the Court to send the document for impounding and collecting the deficit stamp.