SINGI REDDY LAVANYA Vs. N. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 10.02.2020 whereby the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, FAC Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District allowed I.A. No. 261 of 2019 in O.S. No. 536 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff under Section 33 of the Stamps Act seeking to forward Ex. A.1, Agreement of sale, dated 25.01.1998 to the District Registrar for impounding.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are defendants Nos. 2 & 3 in the suit, has mainly contended that although the suit was instituted in the year 2009, the plaintiff, respondent No. 1 herein sought to impound the document i.e., Ex. A1, agreement of sale, dated 25.01.1998 at a belated stage i.e., nearly after ten years of the institution of the suit and that the trial Court failed to observe that the ingredients of Sections 31 and 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 are not attracted in the present case. The learned counsel has further argued that referring the document to the District Registrar for impounding and collection of stamp duty and penalty is not proper, as the District Registrar is not a competent authority under the Act to impound the said document, but it is only the Collector, who can do so under Section 40 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the decision of this Court reported in G. Ramesh v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda District , 2006 6 ALT 476.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, plaintiff has argued that the impounding of a document can be done at any stage of the suit and that under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, once it is brought to the notice of the Court, the Court can also suo motu send the document, which is not properly stamped or insufficiently stamped, for impounding and therefore, there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. To support his argument, the learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Isra Fatima v. Bismilla Begum , 2002 5 ALD 660.