THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2698 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 22.04.2009, in O.S.No.57 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District, wherein the trial Court directed that the agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2007, shall be impounded as per Explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. None appeared for the respondent-defendant. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2007, and alternatively for return of the advance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. Respondent-defendant filed written statement contesting the suit. 4. During the course of trial and at the time of marking the documents, it is stated that the learned counsel for the defendant objected for marking the suit agreement of sale on the ground that it requires stamp duty as if it is a sale deed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there was no delivery of possession contemplated under the suit agreement of sale and therefore the Explanation to Article 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is of no avail. 6. Learned Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and therefore the agreement of sale attracts Explanation to Article 47-A of the Act. 7. A perusal of the suit agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2007, would show that the delivery of possession was not contemplated therein. The suit agreement of sale would state that the rate was fixed at Rs.9500/- per cent and advance of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and the balance sale consideration is payable at the time of registration of the sale deed within 80 days after measurement. The suit agreement of sale does not therefore disclose that possession was delivered earlier on the date of the agreement or under the said document or that the plaintiff was already in possession thereof. 8. Learned Senior Civil Judge also observed in the impugned order that there is no mention in the suit agreement of sale that the property was delivered under the document. 9. The Explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Act would state that an agreement to sell followed or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a sale. Thus for attracting the above provision contained in Explanation-I to any document styled as agreement to sell it shall be shown that the delivery of possession was evidenced by the said document or followed the said document, before it can be treated as a sale deed. In view of the clear and unambiguous language of the provision contained in Explanation-I of Article 47-A of the Act, when the suit agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2007, does not disclose that delivery of possession was effected under the document or that it followed the said document, the said document cannot be treated as a sale for the purpose of the above Explanation-I. There is nothing on record to show that possession of the land was delivered in pursuance of the said agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2007. Under those circumstances, the suit agreement of sale, dated 21.05.2007, cannot be treated as a deed of sale for the purpose of paying the stamp duty under Explanation-I of Article 47-A of the Act. The impugned order, treating the said document as a sale, is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 10. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 19th December, 2011. Tsy