THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1160 of 2010 (Dated : 24-08-2011) Between: Shaik Shameem Begum W/o Subhan Basha ....Petitioner A n d Thalisetty Ammannamma Rajampet Town & Mandal, Kadapa Dsitrict ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1160 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 19-11-2009 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge sustained the objection raised by the respondent-defendant with regard to the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 8.9.2007 and directed the petitioner-plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and whereas the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.175 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8.9.2007. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000/- and received an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as part consideration and executed an agreement dated 8.9.2007 on stamp paper agreeing to receive balance consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- on or before 8.3.2009. On 10-6-2008, the plaintiff paid balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and requested the defendant to execute the registered sale deed. The defendant having promised to execute the registered sale deed after receiving the entire sale consideration, failed to perform his part of contract, i.e., execution of the registered sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 8.9.2007. The relief sought for in the suit reads as hereunder:- “ It is therefore prayed that the Honourable Court may be pleased to grant decree (1) directing the Defendant to execute a Registered Sale Deed as per the terms of the Agreement dated 08.9.2007 in favour of the plaintiff within a stipulated time by the Honourable Court, (2) In the event of failure on the part of the Defendant, this Honourable Court be pleased to execute a Registered Sale Deed as per the Agreement dated: 08.9.2007 in favour of the plaintiff. (3) To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from alienating the Suit Schedule Property. (4) To award costs of the suit and such other relief as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interests of justice”. 3. The defendant filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement of sale. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. When the agreement of sale is tendered for marking as an exhibit on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant raised an objection on the ground that the agreement of sale is not properly stamped and not registered and therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on a perusal of the agreement of sale, sustained the objection raised by the defendant and thereby, proceeded to direct the plaintiff to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreement of sale dated 8.9.2007, by order dated 19.11.2009. Hence this revision. 5. Notice to the respondent came to be ordered on 29.3.2010. The petitioner was permitted to take out notice to the respondent by registered post with acknowledgment due. The petitioner took out notice and filed proof of service, vide U.S.R.No.685 of 2010. Despite notice being served on the respondent, he did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit agreement does not contain delivery of possession and therefore, it does not require stamp duty and registration. A further submission has been made that proper stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale dated 8.9.2007, as per Article 6, Schedule (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to the State of A.P., is Rs.100/- and therefore, the suit agreement is properly stamped. Learned counsel refers proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 in support of his submissions. Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as hereunder:- “49. Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered- No document required by Section 17[ or by any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882] , to be registered shall--- (a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or (b) confer any power to adopt, or (c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power,. Unless it has been registered: [Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act, or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument]. 8. Indisputably, the suit agreement does not indicate of the plaintiff being put in possession of the property. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the suit agreement, he has been put in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, proper stamp duty payable on the suit agreement as per Article 6, Schedule A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, is Rs.100/-. Thus, the suit agreement is properly stamped. The ground on which the learned Senior Civil Judge directed the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty cannot, therefore, be sustained. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 19-11-2009 in O.S.No.175 of 2009. Consequently, the plaintiff is permitted to mark the agreement of sale dated 8.7.2009 as an exhibit on his behalf. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.24-08-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1160 of 2010 (Dated : 24-08-2011)