IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 926 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/01/2008 in WP NO : 17605 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Commissioner Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, AP Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The District Registrar of Assurances, Kadapa Kadapa District 3 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. (The 3rd Respondent herein is impleaded as per Court Order dated 12.11.2007 in W.P.M.P.No.30894 of 2007) ..... APPELLANTS AND M.Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu S/o.Chandraiah C/o.M./s.Sandhya 70 mm Theatre D.No.1-7-106/71, RTC X Roads,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.926 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, representing Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, and at their request, the main appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission. The respondent herein ﬁled Writ Petition No.17605 of 2007 before this Court, wherein he sought for a writ of Certiorari assailing the proceedings, dated 02.08.2007, of the ﬁrst appellant herein, whereunder on a reference made by the civil Court in respect of two documents (1) an agreement of sale, dated 28.03.2001 and (2) receipt for delivery of possession on 18.09.2002, it was held that, as per explanation under Article 47 (A) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, the deﬁcit stamp duty and penalty were ordered to be paid on the said two documents. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court mainly on the ground that both those documents totally stand apart and therefore, cannot be read together for the purpose of levying the stamp duty and penalty. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in B.Ratnamala V. G.Rudramma [1], wherein considering the said provision, it was held that Article 47 (A) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, applies to a case where possession has been delivered to the purchaser under an agreement of sale, if it is done in pursuance of the agreement. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants submits that having regard to the fact that the entire consideration is paid on the said date and possession was also delivered, there was complete sale and therefore, necessarily the respondent is liable to pay the stamp duty and penalty. These submissions were sought to be repelled by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side and also having perused the material on record and having gone through both the documents viz., agreement of sale, dated 28.03.2001 and the receipt for delivery of possession, dated 18.09.2002, we are convinced that both the said documents literally stand apart, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the said writ petition. Admittedly, under the agreement of sale, dated 28.03.2001, there was no delivery of possession. Apart from the said fact, the consideration was paid at later stage. Subsequently on 18.09.2002, after paying the balance, delivery of possession was aﬀected, as evidenced from the said receipt, dated 18.09.2002. Therefore, this latter receipt, dated 18.09.2002, cannot be linked or cannot be said to be a contemporary with the agreement, dated 28.03.2001, for the purpose of levying stamp duty or imposing penalty, as held in B.Ratnamala’s case (cited supra), to which one of us (BPR, J) is a party. In view of such clear proposition laid down by Division Bench of this Court and also the factual dissimulation where both the said documents cannot be said to be contemporary, we do not ﬁnd any merit in the contentions of the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the appellants. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. __________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 07.11.2008 dr [1] 1999 (6) ALD 160 (DBN)