Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/150/2026 of VIBHUDI SURESH Vs PAMIDIMARRI RAMBABU on 22 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 150/2026 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:
APHC010023722026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND
Between:
1. VIBHUDI SURESH, SON OF LATE PUNNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52
2. VIBHUDI NAGA SARALA DEVI,, W/O LATE PUNNAIAH, AGED
AND
1. PAMIDIMARRI RAMBABU, Son of late Venkataratnam, aged about 70
Years, properties, R/o D.No.27-16-34 and 27-16-35, Besent Road,
XIII Addl. District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada and pass
Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings LA.No. 983 of 2025 in O.S.No.262 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble XIII Additional District Judge,
Krishna at Vijayawada pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the
interest of justice and to pass
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 151/2026
Between:
1. VIBHUDI SURESH, SON OF LATE PUNNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52
2. VIBHUDI NAGA SARALA DEVI,, W/O LATE PUNNAIAH AGED
AND
1. PAMIDIMARRI RAMBABU, Son of late Venkataratnam, aged about 70
Years, properties, R/o D.No.27-16-34, and 27-16-35, Besent Road,
XIII Addl. District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada and pass
Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in I.A.No. 985 of 2025 in O.S.No.262 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble XIIl Additional District Judge,
Krishna at Vijayawada pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the
interest of justice and to pass
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 152/2026
Between:
1. VIBHUDI SURESH,, SON OF LATE PUNNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52
2. VIBHUDI NAGA SARALA DEVI,, W/O LATE PUNNAIAH AGED
AND
1. PAMIDIMARRI RAMBABU, Son of late Venkataratnam, aged about 70
Years, properties, R/o D.No.27-16-34 and 27-16-35, Besent Road,
XIII Addl. District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings I.A.No. 984 of 2025 in O.S.No.262 of 2012 on the file of Hon'ble XIII Additional District Judge,
Krishna at Vijayawada pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition in the
interest of justice
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. ANJANEYULU TIRUMALASETTY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. Y V SITHA RAMA SHARMA
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
These three civil revision petitions arise out of three separate orders passed in I.A.Nos.983 of 2025, 985 of 2025 and 984 of 2025 in O.S.No.262 of 2012. Therefore, these three civil revision petitions are heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These three petitions are filed to reopen the suit, to receive the document i.e. certified copy of the receipt dated 09.02.2008 and to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking the said document. All the three petitions came to be dismissed by the impugned orders.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the caveat petitioner for the respondent.
4. The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.No.262 of 2012 on the file of learned XIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The said suit was filed for declaration of title of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and for eviction of the defendants therefrom. The defendants have taken a plea in the said suit that they have purchased the property from the GPA-cum-agreement holder of the original owner of the said property and they are the owners of the said property by virtue of the registered sale deed obtained by them from the GPA holder.
5. The trial of the suit concluded. When the suit is posted for hearing arguments at the fag end of the matter, the defendants 2 and 4 have filed the petitions to reopen the trial of the said suit, to receive certified copy of the receipt dated 09.02.2008 and to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking the same.
6. According to the case pleaded by the defendants, the said receipt dated 09.02.2008 was obtained in proof of payment of balance sale consideration by the GPA holder to the original owner of the property and taking possession of the property under the said receipt. Therefore, the plaintiffs have taken an objection that when the receipt is not only pertaining to payment of balance sale consideration and it is accompanied by delivery of possession of the property, it amounts to conveyance within the meaning of Article 47A and Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and it shall be chargeable as a sale and as such, the said document is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court upheld the said contention and declined to receive the said document in evidence and consequently dismissed all the applications refusing to reopen the trial of the suit, to recall D.W.1 and to receive the said document.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants have preferred the present revision petitions.
8. A copy of the said receipt is made available at page No.69 of the material papers filed along with the revision petition in C.R.P.No.151 of 2026. A perusal of the contents of the same makes it manifest that possession of the subject property was delivered under the said receipt. So, the said receipt relating to payment of balance sale consideration under an agreement of sale- cum-GPA is accompanied by delivery of possession.
9. Article 47A and Schedule 1A clearly envisages that when an agreement of sale is accompanied by delivery of possession of the property, it is chargeable as a sale and the stamp duty is to be paid on it on the entire sale consideration. Admittedly, the receipt in question is insufficiently stamped as the requisite stamp duty is not paid on it.
10. The Apex Court in the case of Omprakash v. Laxminarayan and others1, clearly held that an agreement of sale accompanied by receipt of part consideration and delivery of possession of the property in question would be a ‘conveyance’ within the meaning of the aforesaid provision. Therefore, in view of the clear law laid down by the Apex Court, the document in question under which possession of the property was delivered is clearly inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the trial Court rightly declined to receive the said document, to reopen the evidence of the suit and to recall D.W.1. This Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned orders of the trial Court. So, it warrants no interference with the impugned orders of the trial Court.
11. Resultantly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 23.01.2026 ARR
1 2014 SAR (Civil) 62
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 152/2026
Date: 23.01.2026
ARR