THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.6087 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 07.09.2009 passed in Memo (SR) No.5026 of 2009 in O.S.No.184 of 2005 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Brief facts of the case are that respondents 1 and 2 herein laid the suit in O.S.No.184 of 2005 before the Court below, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.02.2003, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner and respondent No.3 herein, defendants in the suit, in connection with the suit schedule property. The said agreement of sale is stated to have been marked as Ex.A1 in the evidence of P.W.1, subject to objections. While so, the defendants filed the present memo before the Court below, stating that P.W.1, in his evidence, deposed that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property and, as such, the agreement of sale is to be treated as sale deed and stamped accordingly, as per Article 47 (A) Explanation (1) of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and therefore the agreement of sale, which is insufficiently stamped, is liable to be impounded for payment of required stamp duty, before admitting the same in evidence. Plaintiffs filed objections to the said memo, contending that, as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, possession has not been delivered to the plaintiffs and thus the agreement of sale cannot be treated as sale deed and there is no necessity for impounding the same. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, rejected the memo filed by the defendants, by the impugned order, holding that there is no necessity to impound the suit document and the same is admissible in evidence for deciding the issues in the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by defendant No.1 in the suit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. Though it is the contention of the defendants that in view of the deposition of P.W.1 in his evidence that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property, the agreement of sale should be treated as sale deed and accordingly stamp duty collected thereon, the fact remains, the Court below, upon going through the recitals of the agreement of sale, found that possession of the suit schedule property has not been delivered to the plaintiffs. Having found so, and having regard to the judgment of this Court reported in 2004 Andhra Weekly Reporter (1) 142, wherein it was held that while deciding the question relating to the payment of stamp duty and penalty on a particular document, the recitals of the document have to be looked into and not the pleadings of the respective parties and the levy of the stamp duty and penalty cannot depend upon the pleadings of the parties, the Court below rejected the stand taken by the defendants, and I find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 1st February 2010 IBL