IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3462 OF 2009 Between: Thorri Somaiah S/o. Mallaiah …. Petitioner AND Prathapa Raji Reddy S/o. Mallaiah and another …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3462 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 03-07-2009 in I.A. No.238 of 2009 in I.A. No.215 of 2009 in O.S. No.29 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District whereunder and whereby the petition under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act read with Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed. 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs, in the suit. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision are stated as follows: The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit basing on the Agreements of Sale dated 27-09-2003 and 25-07-2004 for specific performance along with I.A. No.215 of 2009 for grant of temporary injunction. Their allegation is that as per the alleged Agreements of Sale, possession was delivered to them. Since both the documents are unstamped and unregistered, they are liable to be stamped as a “sale” under explanation-I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, and therefore, the petitioner/ defendant prayed not to receive the said documents. 4. The Court below dismissed the above application holding that the Vikrayanamapathram and the sale deed dated 27-09-2003 do not require any stamp duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the specific case of the respondents/plaintiffs is that they were put in possession of the property by virtue of the agreements of sale; that under explanation I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of Indian Stamp Act, the agreements require stamp duty. Therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is only at interlocutory stage and the admissibility or relevancy of the documents can be decided in the suit itself and that the possession was not contemporaneous; therefore, the documents do not fall under the proviso to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. He also relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court. 7. The suit is filed by the respondents herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29-07-2003, which is revised and extended by subsequent agreement of sale dated 25-07-2004. In pursuance of the agreements, they were put in possession of the property and they have been cultivating the lands since 2004. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the agreement contemplated giving of possession after payment of two installments, and therefore, the possession was not contemporaneous with the date of agreement and the possession is not given simultaneously with the agreement, and Explanation I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act does not apply. 8. Explanation I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, reads as follows: “Article 47-A:- An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a “sale” under this act.” 9. This explanation was enacted by amendment Act 21 of 1995 with effect from 01-04-1995. 10. For the purpose of deciding whether the document is liable for stamp duty or not, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in DHUMTHI EKAMBARESWARAPPA vs. T. SHAMBULINGAPPA AND ANOTHER[1] wherein it is held as follows: “……. But, however, while deciding whether a particular document is liable for the Stamp Duty and Penalty, the recitals of the document in question and the pleadings of the party concerned may have to be considered and in view of the fact that the recitals of the document do not reflect any delivery of the possession and also in view of the fact in the pleading relief of recovery of possession also had been prayed for, the impugned order holding that Ex.A-1 is liable for Stamp Duty and Penalty as sale deed in view of the Explanation to Article 47-A of Schedule 1-Aof the Indian Stamp Act cannot be sustained.” 11. In this case, documents in question and the pleadings would clearly go to show that the possession of the land was delivered to the respondents after payment of second installment. 12. However, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision in B. RATNAMALA v. G. RUDRAMMA[2] wherein it was held as follows in para-13:- “Thus, it was a specific case where in so many words the explanation takes in all the situations i.e., delivery of possession before the execution or at the time of execution or after the execution of an agreement and such agreements are deemed to be conveyances for the purpose of imposing stamp duty……..” 13. A perusal of the above decision clearly shows that the possession was delivered after the agreement; it is a conveyance, which falls under explanation 1 of Article 47-A of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The interpretation given by the Division Bench of this Court is that if the possession was given prior to the agreement or at the time of agreement or after the agreement must relate to the agreement itself. Therefore, the specific recital has been incorporated by way of note stating that the possession will be delivered after payment of second installment and accordingly two installments have been paid. Hence, the respondents plead that they are in possession of the property and the possession was given with reference to the agreement of sale in question only but not otherwise. Therefore, the document requires stamp duty penalty. 14. The decision relied upon by the learned Sub Judge in JAVVADI KOTESHWARA RAO vs. SONTI SAMBASHIVA RAO[3] has no application, because the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act deals with registration of the document. Therefore, under the said provision unregistered document can be looked into for collateral purpose. Another decision relied upon by the trial Court is CHORUMALA KAMALA vs. SAMANTHAPUDI INDIRA[4]. This decision has also no application to the present case, as the amendment was not in existence by the date of rendering the judgment. 15. The other contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that stamp duty is not liable to be paid on the document at the interlocutory stage, cannot be accepted because unless the stamp duty is paid, it cannot be looked into. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 03-07-2009 in I.A. No.238 of 2009 in I.A. No.215 of 2009 in O.S. No.29 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District is set aside. _____________ K.C. BHANU, J AUGUST 20, 2009. KTL [1] 2008(3) ALT 330 [2] 1999(6) ALD 160 (DB) [3] 2004(1) LS 124 [4] 1996(3) ALT 706