THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4165 of 2009 DATE: 15.10.2009 Between: Toleti Dhanaraju and another ……Petitioners and Smt. Vadrangi Aruna Devi and others ……Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Sivananda Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: N.A. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER: The petitioners/plaintiffs filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order, dated 17.08.2009 passed by the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry in O.S.No.6 of 2008. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the above suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 25.01.1994. In the said document it is cited that possession was given to the petitioner on the date of agreement of sale. In view of the amendment carried out to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Schedule 1- A, the agreement of sale is liable to stamp duty on the total consideration. Further, the petitioners themselves filed a memo requesting the Court below to impound and send the original agreement of sale, dated 25.01.1994 to the Collector under the Act for deciding the stamp duty payable and collect it. On filing such memo, the Court below, by the impugned docket order, dated 17.08.2009, determined the stamp duty and the penalty payable on the document. Questioning the correctness of the same, this revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once the petitioners requested the Court below to impound and send the original agreement of sale, dated 25.01.1994 to the Collector under the Act for deciding the stamp duty payable, the Court cannot determine the stamp duty and it is only the Collector, who has to determine the same. Since the petitioners requested the Court below to impound the document, the Court below can determine the stamp duty payable on the said document and impound it before receiving the evidence and after collecting stamp duty it can send the document to the Collector as contemplated under Section 38(1) of the Act. In view of the same, no illegality is discernable in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 15.10.2009 va