THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.NO.2007 OF 2011 ORDER This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 31-5-2001 in I.A.973 of 2010 in O.S.No.72 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Narasaraopet, wherein the learned Additional District Judge overruled the objection raised by the petitioner herein, the second defendant, regarding the admissibility of the suit agreement of sale deed dated 12-5-2009 on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped and directed both parties to proceed with hearing of the interlocutory petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff. Perused the records. The first respondent herein filed the suit against the second respondent-D1 and petitioner-D2 for specific performance of suit agreement of sale dated 12-5-2009. The petitioner-D2 contested the suit. The first respondent herein filed I.A.No.973 of 2010 for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC pending disposal of the suit. The petitioner-D2 filed a counter opposing the said application. At the time of hearing of the said I.A.No.973 of 2010, the first respondent-plaintiff sought to rely upon the suit agreement of sale dated 12-5-2009, marking the same as an exhibit at the interlocutory stage. The petitioner-D2 raised objection on the ground that the said document being stamped only with stamp paper worth Rs.100/- is insufficiently stamped as it is possessory agreement requiring stamp duty to be paid on par with conveyance and is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence even at the stage of interlocutory stage. The trial Court by the impugned order overruled the said objection observing that the same can be considered at the time of hearing the injunction petition and it can be perused and taken into consideration for deciding the interlocutory application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-D2 filed the present civil revision petition. A perusal of the document dated 12-5-2003 would show that apart from the fact that it was styled as possessory sale agreement, the recitals in the document were also to the effect that possession of the property was delivered under the said document. But that document, which is in the nature of a possessory agreement of sale under which possession of the property is also delivered is not disputed by the plaintiff. When that is so, under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (for short ‘the Act’) the document is required to be stamped as a conveyance, since Explanation-I to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Act states that agreement of sale followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be charged as a sale under this Article. Since the suit document is carrying the stamp duty of only Rs.100/-, the same is insufficiently stamped and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar contained in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, which states that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose or shall be acted upon unless such instrument is duly stamped. In a decision in Sri Tirumala Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad v. GPR Housing (P) Ltd., Hyderabad[1], this Court held that agreement of sale coupled with delivery of possession is chargeable as conveyance by virtue of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A. In a recent decision in Burra Anitha v. Elagari Mallavva and others[2], this Court held as follows: “When the objection to the document in question was not only on the ground of want of registration, but also on the ground of want of sufficient stamp, the party producing the document was not stated either to have offered or to have made any attempt to pay required stamp duty and penalty on the document to enable consideration of the admissibility of the document for any collateral purpose and in view of the absolute prohibition under Section 35 of the Stamp Act, looking into the document even for the purposes of an interlocutory application, will be overlooking a basic legal infirmity or illegality. It was further held as follows: “Rule 60 of Civil Rule of Practice provides for marking of the documents in interlocutory proceedings in the same manner as in a suit.” It is, therefore, held that when an objection is taken by the opposite party for marking a document insufficiently stamped and unregistered during enquiry in IA, the Court shall determine such objection on merits before marking the document during interlocutory enquiry instead of marking the same and postponing its consideration to a later date. In the circumstances and in view of the above decisions, the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff that the document can be marked for the purpose of interlocutory application, notwithstanding the objection regarding its admissibility for want of sufficient stamp duty, is untenable. The objection regarding the admissibility of the document on the ground that it was insufficiently stamped and taken by the opposite party has to be necessarily considered by the Court even at the interlocutory stage, on its merits, before proceeding further in the matter. Under the above circumstances, the impugned order, permitting the admission of the document though it is insufficiently stamped, is held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. It is open to the first respondent-plaintiff to avail other remedies available under the Stamp Act, including impounding of the document by the Stamp Collector. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J rkk Dated: 8-9-2011 [1] 2006(5) ALD 359 [2] 2010(6) ALT 128