THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3136 of 2010 (Dated : 30-07-2010) Between: Gokula sathi Reddy S/o Laxmi Narasimha …Petitioner A n d Eluru Laxmi W/o Late Sudhakar And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3136 of 2010 ORDER: This revision has been directed against the order dated 3.2.2010 passed in O.S.No.55 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner/plaintiff has been directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the suit agreement of sale dated 8.3.2006 for being received and admitted in evidence for the purpose of marking the same as an exhibit in O.S.No.55 of 2007. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.55 of 2007. He claims to have purchased the suit land for Rs.23,00,000/- and paid Rs.6,00,000/- as advance sale consideration on 8.3.2006. The 1st defendant-Eluru Laxmi received the earnest money and executed an agreement of sale on 8.3.2006 and agreed to receive the balance sale consideration on or before 8.4.2006. He was also put in possession of the property after a week of the agreement of sale after measuring the lands. He filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and also for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant dispossessed him from the suit land on 22.4.2007 under the colour of injunction order obtained by her in O.S.No.40 of 2007. For better appreciation, I may refer para 8 of the plaint, which reads as hereunder:- “ The plaintiff entered into this agreement with the 1st Defendant to purchase the suit lands by disposing all of his Agricultural lands and tendered the balance consideration to the 1st Defendant as per the terms of the Agreement as stated supra on account of the violation of the terms of the contract by the 1st Defendant and taking the paddy crops by the 2nd Defendant under the colour of injunction order the plaintiff was put to heavy loss and injury for which he is entitled to damages and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only). The 2nd Defendant is in possession of the suit land since 22-4- 2007 when the plaintiff was dispossessed forcibly by the 2nd defendant under the colour of injunction order. The plaintiff not contested this suit as he wants to settle the dispute in the village before the elders as stated supra but there was of no use as such it has become indispensable to approach this Hon’ble Court and to file this suit for the relief of specific performance of the contract against the Defendants in respect of the suit schedule property and also for damages and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The 1st Defendant not performed her part of contract intentionally violating the terms of the contract, more over she executed a nominal gift settlement deed in favour of the 2nd Defendant in collusion with each other. Therefore, the 2nd Defendant has been added as a party to this suit. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the Defendants”. 3. The defendants filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. When the petitioner-plaintiff intended to mark the agreement of sale dated 8.3.2006, the respondents-defendants raised an objection for marking the said document on the ground that the document is not properly stamped and unregistered. 4. The trial Court heard counsel appearing for the parties on the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 8.3.2006 and directed the petitioner-plaintiff to pay Deficit Court Fee for marking the said document as an exhibit, by order dated 3.2.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as on this day, the petitioner is not in possession of the property and therefore, the agreement of sale is not required to be stamped. In support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Cheryala Srinivas v. Moola Sujatha and others[1]. In the cited case, it was the plea of the parties that under the document, the possession was not delivered to the agreement holder. 7. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the petitioner- plaintiff specifically averred in the plaint that pursuant to the agreement dated 8.3.2006, he was put in possession of the property and his possession continued till 22.4.2007 on which day, the 2nd defendant high-handedly disposed him. Therefore, the cited case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 8. When possession has been delivered under an agreement of sale, the said document is liable to be stamped as per Explanation–1 and Proviso to Article –47 of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt. 30-07-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3136 of 2010 (Dated : 30-07-2010) [1] 2010(1) ALT 448