*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD +C.R.P.No.3762 of 2007 % 01/07/2010 # Master K. Geeti Anikit, S/o Om Prakash, Being minor represented by his natural mother Smt. K. Aditi ..... Revision Petitioner Vs. $ M/s. Sai Sri Buildiers, reptd. by M. Anantha Narsaiah and another .....RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE REVISION PETITIONER: Sri P. Sridhar ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: P. Venkateswara Rao < Gist : Ø Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3762 of 2007 Between: Master K. Geet Ankit .. Petitioner AND M/s. Sai Sri Builders and another .. Respondents ORDER: The docket order of the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in O.S.No.1197 of 2004 dated 09-08-2007 led the plaintiff to file this Civil Revision Petition. Bereft of the various details of the subject matter of the suit, the controversy herein is about a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties dated 10-06-2004, which is the original of Ex.B.6 and the stamp duty payable on the same. It was the contention of the plaintiff that it was a development agreement liable for stamp duty as per Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, while the defendants contended that this document was only a sequel to an earlier development agreement to resolve some differences that arose later and stamp duty can be levied only under Article 6 (A). The trial Court noted that the earlier development agreement dated 05-05-2001 could not be given effect to within a reasonable time, due to which the present Memorandum of Understanding with certain other terms and conditions was entered into between the parties. The terms and conditions were also noted to be with regard to the payment of amount, share of built up area and construction of the building and mulgies. The trial Court opined that the document being only for resolution of the disputes between the parties cannot be treated like the original document dated 05-05-2001 and is liable for stamp duty under Article 6 (A), more so, when the original development agreement was not cancelled. Therefore, it ordered admission of Ex.B.6 into evidence without the necessity of collecting any stamp duty. The plaintiff claimed in this revision that the document itself creates or modifies the rights in immovable property and is, therefore, straight away liable to be stamped and registered. The mere reference to the earlier Memorandum of understanding dated 05-05-2001 will not change the character of the present document, even if it were a supplemental agreement. Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and P. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondents are heard. Article 6 of the Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act 1899 provides under clause (A) for payment of stamp duty on different values concerning an agreement or Memorandum of agreement not otherwise provided for. Clause (B) specifically provides for the payment of stamp duty in case such an agreement or Memorandum of agreement not otherwise provided for relates to construction of a house or building etc., including for development/sale of any other immovable property. The copies of the original development agreement and the subject Memorandum of Understanding when perused show that the terms and conditions of the original development agreement dated 05-05-2001 had to undergo material change in the second memorandum due to the disputes that cropped up in the meanwhile due to the delay in completion of the complex and consequential misunderstandings and the specific terms and conditions of the later memorandum show that there was a fresh agreement between the landowners and the builder about the monies payable, the construction to be made, the utilization of water and electricity for the purpose of construction, the enjoyment of common areas etc., and the land owners specifically agreed to withdraw a court case with the builder bearing the legal expenses. These are new terms and conditions concerning the transaction of construction of a complex in the property in question and plainly and unambiguously the document amounts to an agreement between the parties in this regard. While the agreement undoubtedly comes under Article-6, the controversy being whether it comes under clause A or clause B, the agreement relating to the construction of a house or building including a multi- unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/ portion of a multistoried building or for development/sale of any other immovable property undoubtedly falls within clause (B) and is liable for stamp duty accordingly. The order of the trial Court has to be, therefore, deviated from and as to how the document could be exempted from stamp duty is unintelligible. Therefore, the docket order dated 09-08-2007 in O.S.No.1197 of 2004 on the file of the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, is set aside and Ex.B.6 shall be considered to be admitted into evidence only on payment of required stamp duty and penalty under Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1- A of the Stamp Act 1899 and if it is a document requiring registration and is unregistered, subject to the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act 1908. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 01-07-2010 Ksn