CRP/1467/2019 of GUDIMETLA SUBBALAKSHMI Vs GUDIMETLA DAMAYANTHI on 31 December 2024

Facts

1. P RAJESH BABU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T V SRI DEVI

The Court made the following:

The present revision is directed against order dated 01.04.2019 in OS.No.138/2015, where under, the trail Court ordered, the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty on agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015.

2. The facts of the case are as under.

3. The petitioner is the 2[nd] defendant. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are the plaintiffs, the 3[rd] respondent is the 1[st] defendant in the suit. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed suit for delivery of possession of plaint schedule property by directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also sought for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to return the original Will dated 17.05.1991 executed by Smt. Degala Bullemma in favor of the 1[st]plaintiff and original sale deed dated 06.02.1968 executed in favor of Smt. Degala Bullemma and for other reliefs.

4. The plaintiff initially executed agreement of sale dated 20.02.1998 in favor of the petitioner herein and her two daughters. A perusal of the recitals in the said document discloses that, the property was sold for Rs.2,00,000/- and out of the total sale consideration, the petitioner/2[nd] defendant has paid an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards advance and the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be payable to Aryapuram Urban Cooperative Bank, Rajahmundry. Under the said agreement of sale no possession was delivered. Subsequently, the 1[st] respondent/1[st] plaintiff executed another agreement of sale dated 04.10.2004 in favor of the petitioner herein as against the suit schedule property and sale consideration was fixed @ Rs.2,25,000/- and on a further perusal of the said document, it is clear that the entire sale consideration was received by the 1[st] respondent as on the date of agreement.

5. The said document further reflects that the possession was also delivered to the 3[rd] respondent herein, who is none other than the husband of the 1[st] petitioner. It was also agreed between the parties that a registered sale deed would be executed in furtherance of the agreement of sale dated 04.10.2004. The 1[st]respondent/1[st] plaintiff again executed agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015 (3[rd] document) in favor of the petitioner/2[nd] defendant. In the said agreement of sale, it was mentioned that, there was an earlier agreement of sale executed by the 1[st] respondent to the 3[rd] respondent herein on 20.02.1998 and on the same day, possession was also delivered to the 3[rd] respondent. During the trail, the 2[nd] defendant/petitioner herein tried to mark the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015, upon which the respondents/plaintiffs objected for the same, on the ground that the same requires stamp duty. The trail Court after considering the case, by order dated 01.04.2019 directed the said document to be impounded for collection of stamp duty and penalty, which is being impugned in the present revision petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. counsel for the respondents.

7. Perused the material available on record.

8. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that, the possession of the suit schedule property was handed over in favor of her husband by virtue of agreement of sale dated 20.02.1998, but not under agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015 and therefore the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015 does not require stamp duty, since possession was not delivered under the said document.

9. Per contra the counsel for the respondents would contend that, though the possession was not delivered under agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015, on a perusal of recitals of the said agreement of sale, it is clearly mentioned therein that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to the 3[rd]respondent/2[nd]defendant by agreement of sale dated 20.02.1988, meaning thereby, once possession is delivered, it is incumbent unless the document is impounded for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and penalty, the document which sought to be marked by the petitioner herein cannot be admitted in evidence.

10. For deciding whether the disputed agreement of sale is required to be impounded or not, the recitals of the document plays an pivotal role. If the document contains evidence of delivery of possession by a recital, that itself is suffice that the possession is delivered. The delivery of possession can be prior to the agreement of sale and need not be under the said agreement itself. Once it is recited in the agreement of sale that, the possession was delivered even prior to the date of execution of the said document evidencing the delivery of possession, the same is liable for stamp duty.

11. In the instant case, the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015 refers to agreement of sale dated 20.02.1998 under which the possession was delivered. Therefore, the trail Court having considered the facts of the case and placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of B.Ratnamala Vs. G.Rudramma reported in 1999 (6) ALD 160 (DB) directed to impound the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2015. The case on hand is akin to the case referred to in the above judgment. The counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the possession of the suit schedule property is delivered and once it is admitted, the document in dispute requires stamp duty as provided under Article 47/A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899.

12. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the present revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________

JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR

CRP No.1467 of 2019Date 31.12.2024

U

DSB