IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6042 OF 2009 Between : Racharla Educational Society, Rep.by its Managing Director, Aluri Rajaiah …Petitioner A N D Pathuri Lingareddy. …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6042 OF 2009 O R D E R: 1. The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the docket order, dated 24-11-2009 passed in O.S. No.30 of 2008, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, whereunder and whereby the trial court directed the petitioner/plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty on the unregistered agreement of sale dated 25.08.2005, for marking of the said document, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in B.Rathnamala v. G.Rudhrammain[1]. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the possession of property was delivered prior to present agreement of sale, under another agreement, which is an independent and separate one that of present agreement, and hence, no stamp duty and penalty is required to be paid on agreement of sale dated 25.08.2005. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that Division Bench of this court categorically held that the agreement indicating the delivery of possession even in past, is liable for payment of stamp duty and penalty, and following the same, the trial Court rightly directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and penalty. 4. In B.Ratnamala’s case (1 supra), a Division Bench of this Court held thus: “Therefore, on a proper interpretation of the said expressions, it would follow that an agreement containing specific recital of delivery of possession or indicating delivery of possession even in the past is liable for stamp duty as a ‘sale’ under the said Explanation.” No doubt, the recitals in the document dated 25.08.2005 show that in pursuance of earlier agreement of sale, possession was delivered, but the Division Bench has categorically indicated that when delivery of possession was effected in the past, still such agreement is liable for payment of stamp duty and penalty, as a ‘sale’ under the said explanation. Therefore, though the present document now sought to be marked, does not indicate about the delivery of possession, there is an indication that in the past transaction, delivery of possession has been effected. Hence, the document falls under Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The trial court rightly held that the document requires stamp duty and penalty. That order does not suffer any infirmities so as to call for interference of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J APRIL 06, 2010. YVL [1] 1999 (6) ALT 59 (DB)