IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4396 of 2009 Between: Padala Mega Reddy. … Petitioner And Tadi Ratnavathi. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4396 of 2009 ORDER: - Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 15.03.1992, in which he filed I.A.No.281 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Alamur under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, to receive the list of documents and to mark them as Exs.A1 to A6 and to condone the delay. The lower Court by order dated 04.08.2009 after going into the recitals of the document, where the property was sold for Rs.49,500/- and the entire consideration as such was paid by the petitioner under the agreement which is sought to be enforced, recorded the possession of the property by the petitioner/plaintiff earlier to document No.1 and held that for marking document No.1 i.e., the agreement of sale, the petitioner is required to pay required stamp duty and penalty, while permitting the petitioner to mark the documents 2 to 6. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present revision is filed. In spite of service of notice on the counsel representing the respondent, respondent is not willing to put up any appearance. This Court in Dadi Reddy Sivanarayana Reddy v. Kasi Reddy Chinnamma[1] categorically held that the crucial test is not whether the document merely creates a right to obtain another document but whether the document ‘limits and extinguishes’ the right, title and interest in the property in the present and future in praesenti or in futuro is the deciding factor, after referring to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Kashinath Bhaskar v. Bhaskar Vishweshwar (AIR 1952 SC 153). Once the disputed document is only agreement of sale it does not require stamp duty or registration. Article 6-A-iii of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as substituted by Act 21 of 1995, prescribes an agreement exceeds Rs.20,000/- but does not exceed Rs.50,000/-, the stamp duty payable is Rs.50/-. So admittedly the document, which is now sought to be marked as Ex.A1, is executed on Rs.50/- stamp paper and hence it is not a sale. The petitioner need not pay the entire stamp duty on the said document, as observed by the lower court. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower court is set aside and the I.A. filed by the petitioner for receiving the documents is allowed. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ (A.GOPAL REDDY, J) 20.11.2009. Lmv [1] AIR 2001 A.P. 142