IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1023 of 2010 Between: Reddi Atchiyamma & 2 others …Petitioners And: Batula Ptttabhi Rama Rao & 4 others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1023 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 05.02.2009 in admissibility of the document in OS No. 129 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein, the learned Junior Civil Judge held that the document dated 04.03.1994 is sufficiently stamped and required no deficit stamp duty penalty. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed suit seeking a direction to the petitioners/defendants 1, 3 and 4 and 5th respondent/D.2 to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs in terms of unregistered sale deed dated 04.03.1994 in respect of the suit property. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. During trial, while PW.1 evidence was being adduced, suit document i.e., agreement of sale dated 04.03.1994 was sought to be marked. Learned counsel for the defendants objected for the same on the ground that it is insufficiently stamped, as it comes within the purview of explanation to Article 47A of Schedule IA of the Indian Stamp Act. The contention of the defendants is that by virtue of the said explanation to Article 47A, the document has to be treated as conveyance of the sale, as delivery of possession is also effected on the date of the document i.e., 04.03.1994. Any agreement of sale where under possession is delivered is liable to be charged with stamp duty, as if it is sale by virtue of Article 47A of the Stamp Act. However, the said provision was introduced by way of Amendment i.e., A.P. Amendment Act 21 of 1995, which came into force from 01.04.1995. 4. In the present case, the suit document was dated 04.03.1994, which was prior to the date of coming into force of the amendment. Therefore, the learned Junior Civil Judge has rightly held that the amended provision is not applicable in respect of the suit document and hence, the document required stamp duty of Rs.100/- and it is properly stamped and does not require any deficit stamp duty and penalty to be paid. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 16.08.2010 Bss