THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 7th August 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1451 of 2009 Between: Vallabhaneni Padmini, W/o.V.Sudhakar Chowdary, 37 years, Housewife, D.No.59-7-3/A, Acharya Ranga Street, Ramachandra Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District. …PETITIONER AND 1. Dr.Ganga Raghava Rao, S/o.late Rama Rao, Hindu, 60 years, Doctor, 5th line, Pandaripuram, Guntur-7. And ten others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1451 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard both the sides and at their request, the revision itself is taken up for disposal. The petitioner-seventh respondent in the Court below files this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the order dated 24.01.2009 in I.P.No.67 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, upholding an objection in regard to the document sought to be relied on by the petitioner and sought to be introduced in the evidence on the ground that it requires proper stamp duty and penalty. The main submission made is to the effect that no interest is transferred immediately and further, the term showing that the possession was delivered is not correct and in fact, no possession was delivered. Therefore, considering the same as gift as done by the Court below is not correct. Hence, the revision. On considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material available on record, there is no dispute in regard to the contents of the said document. It certainly contemplates, as rightly observed by the Court below, that the necessary documents must be properly stamped and the possession can be delivered in terms thereof. Having regard to such a situation, where possession gets delivered, necessarily, the said document, as rightly held by the Court below, has to be treated as a gift and accordingly, it needs necessary stamp duty and penalty. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance a decision reported in Attirala Chinnamma v. Gummadi Ravindraiah[1], wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court held that unregistered agreement of sale can be received as evidence in a suit for specific performance under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 {“the Act” for brevity} and the said document will not come within the purview of Section 17 (1) of the Act, the said decision has no application to the facts of this case. Hence, there are no merits in the revision. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. The time for payment of stamp duty and penalty stands extended for a further period of one month from today. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 7th August 2009 RRB [1] 2009 (2) ALT 143