THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4982 of 2009 Dated: 06.11.2009 Between: Menakuru Raghava Reddy and others. .. Petitioners. And Smt.Utpala Lakshmi and others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order dated 01.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.260 of 2006 in O.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nellore, allowing the petition filed under Section 35(a) of Indian Stamp Act seeking the relief of impounding the suit agreement of sale, dated 28.06.2000, and collecting the stamp duty and penalty thereon. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit O.S.No.27 of 2006 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Nellore, filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.06.2000 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. During pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant filed the present petition being I.A.No.260 of 2006 in the suit seeking the relief of impounding the suit agreement dated 28.06.2000 and collecting the stamp duty and penalty thereon. The Court below, after examining all the aspects, by the impugned order dated 01.07.2009 allowed the said petition and ordered the plaintiffs to pay stamp duty or seek the document to be sent to the District Collector (District Registrar), Nellore for impounding the same on or before 10.07.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs preferred the present Civil Revision Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submits that the agreement sought to be impounded is not an agreement of sale, but it is only an agreement for execution of a sale deed in future and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a conveyance and there is no necessity of impounding it and collecting stamp duty and penalty thereon. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Judge, having observed that the entire suit claim is basing on the sale agreement, recitals of which show that the plaintiffs were put in possession of the property covered under the said agreement, and relying on the principles laid down in B.Ratnamala vs. G.Rudramma (AIR 2000 AP 167) and M/s. Sri Tirumala Housing Private Limited vs. M/s. GPR Housing Limited, Hyderabad (2006(3) LS page 1), rightly held that the document is chargeable as conveyance. Thus, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be countenanced. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 06.11.2009 v v