THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4273 of 2010 18.11.2010 Between: Singiri Penchalaiah Rathnaiah ….Petitioner AND Muchalli Subrahmanyam Reddy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4273 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the plaintiff. He instituted the suit claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) from the plaintiff allegedly towards refund of advance money paid under agreement of sale dated 12.01.2005 in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.3.25 cents situated at Annasamypalle Village of Renigunta Mandal in Chittoor District. The respondent is opposing the suit raising various pleas. During the trial, the petitioner proposed to mark the sale agreement dated 12.01.2005. It was objected to on the ground that it requires stamp duty and penalty under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The objection was upheld. Aggrieved by the ruling of the trial Court, dated 05.07.2010, the petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Placing reliance on Cheryala Srinivas v Moola Sujatha[1], counsel for petitioners contends that the land which was agreed to be sold under agreement as Gutta Poramboke Government land and therefore, except mentioning in the recital in the agreement, actual possession was not handed over. Therefore, according to the counsel, the impugned order is erroneous. Per contra, the counsel for respondent/defendant relies on M/s.Sri Tirumala Housing (Private) Limited v G.P.R.Housing (Private) Limited[2] and submits that any agreement of sale under which possession was handed over is chargeable as conveyance under Article 47-A of the Stamp Act. Counsel for petitioner does not dispute the legal position as clarified in Sri Tirumala Housing (supra). His plea is that actual possession was not handed over. This submission cannot be accepted. A copy of the agreement placed before us belies the contention. It contains recital that, “today possession is handed over to the vendee”. Further, in paragraph 17 of the written statement filed by the respondent, a categorical averment was made that the agreement schedule property was delivered to the petitioner. No rejoinder was filed. Therefore, the conclusion of the trial Court that the document sought to be marked attract stamp duty and penalty under Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act is unexceptionable. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 18.11.2010 Pln [1] 2010 (1) ALD 246 [2] 2006 (3) ALJ 104 (HC)