IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4 2 2 8 of 2009 Between Karnam Venkateswara Rao & Anr. … Revision Petitioners V/s. Desu Krishna Kumari … Respondent Counsel for the Revision Petitioners: Sri N. Ravi Prasad Counsel for the Respondent : Sri G. Sudhakar Reddy THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4 2 2 8 OF 2009 O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 17-07-2009 passed in I.A.No.124 of 2009 in OS.No. 28 of 2009 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur district, over-ruling the objection under schedule 1(A), Article 6 (B) of Indian Stamps Act, raised by the defendants for marking the agreement of sale-cum-advance receipt on the ground of insufficiently stamped for the plaintiff, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants. 2. The main objection on behalf of the Revision Petitioners- defendants is that the document; namely, agreement of sale-cum- advance receipt is insufficiently stamped under Schedule 1(A), Article 6 (B) of Indian Stamps Act. 3. The court below while considering the said document, rejected the objection raised by the Revision Petitioners-defendants holding that the predominant purpose for which the agreement of sale entered into is neither construction nor development, the objection raised by the Revision Petitioners-defendants would not fit into the mischief of Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1 (A) of Indian Stamps Act and the suit agreement which was drafted on non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- is quite sufficient as per Article 6 (A) of Schedule 1 (A) of Indian Stamps Act. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners-defendants as well as the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff and on perusing the impugned order it appears that the court below erroneously misinterpreted the Article 6 (A) and (B) under schedule 1-A of the Stamps Act. Article 6 (B) stipulates that if relating to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property then five rupees for every one hundred rupees or part thereof on the market value or the estimated cost of the proposed construction development of such property as the case may be, as mentioned in the agreement or the value arrived at in accordance with the schedule of rates prescribed by the public works department authorities, whichever is higher. In the present case on hand, the agreement of sale in question is falling under category “sale of any other immovable property” and the proper stamp duty is Rs.5/- for every Rs.100/- or part thereof on the market value and when the same is absent, the document can be said to be insufficiently stamped and inadmissible to be received or marked by the court below. 5. The aspect is whether commercial or residential or non- residential are totally unwarranted. The order of the court below is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below taking into consideration the above parameters in a proper perspective. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 17-07-2009 passed in I.A.No.124 of 2009 in OS.No. 28 of 2009 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur district, be and is hereby set aside. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 29-04--2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4228 OF 2009 CIRCULATION ENTRY No.7 0 Date: 29-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43