IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.879 OF 2009 Between: Thallapally Komuraiah …Petitioner A n d Mandalapu Ramaiah and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.879 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.12.2008 in I.A.No.784 of 2008 in O.S.No.728 of 2003, on the file of the II-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the first defendant, requesting the Court not to consider document dated 07.03.1988 and document dated 04.05.1990 for marking through the evidence of P.W.1, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit against respondents 3 to 7 and petitoner/D-1 for specific performance of agreement of sale. The petitioner/D-1 filed a written statement contesting the suit. At the time of trial, the plaintiff sought to exhibit two documents, one dated 07.03.1988 and the other dated 04.05.1990 in evidence through P.W.1. The petitioner/D-1 objected for the same on the ground that the agreement dated 07.03.1988 is executed on stamp paper worth Rs.5/- only and is inadmissible in evidence in view of Article 47A of the Indian Stamp Act (for short ‘the Act’) under which provision the document is to be stamped on the basis of the value of the property. The petitoner/D-1 further contended that the other document dated 04.05.1990 which was executed on stamp paper worth Rs.10/- is executed in name one Ch.Koteswari who is not a party to the suit and is irrelevant. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a counter contending that both the documents were referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of impounding and after conducting enquiry, the Revenue Divisional Officer levied deficit stamp duty and penalty on the document dated 04.05.1990 and the other document dated 07.03.1988 is found to be properly stamped and, therefore, the question of again impounding the documents does not arise. 4. By the impugned order, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said application overruling the objections raised by the petitoner/D-1. Hence, the present revision. 5. The document dated 07.03.1988 is an agreement of sale executed by petitioner/D-1 in favour of first respondent. The said document purports to be an agreement of sale executed on stamp paper worth Rs.5/-. The document inter alia recites that possession of the land was also delivered to the vendee on the date of document. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the document was previously referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer for the purpose of impounding along with the other document dated 04.05.1990 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, by his reply dated 18.07.2005, informed the learned Senior Civil Judge that his predecessor has impounded the document dated 04.05.1990 duly collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty. The said document dated 04.05.1990 is said to be an agreement of sale executed by petitoner/D-1 in favour of Ch.Koteswari regarding the same extent of land i.e., Ac.3-21 gts in Sy.No.311/A and Ac.0-28 gts in Sy.No.311/E, totalling Ac.4-09 gts. The document dated 04.05.1990 bears an endorsement of the Revenue Divisional Officer to the effect that deficit stamp duty and penalty have been collected and the document is impounded under Article 47A of the Act. No such endorsement by the Revenue Divisional officer is, however, found on the other document dated 07.03.1988. The letter dated 18.07.2005 addressed by the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Senior Civil Judge is also silent about the same, though both documents are agreements of sale pertaining to the same land, but executed in favour of different persons. In both the documents, it is recited that possession of the land was delivered to the respective vendees. The document dated 04.05.1990 refers to the earlier agreement dated 07.03.1988. Insofar as the document dated 04.05.1990 is concerned, a certificate dated 10.10.2003 is appended by the Revenue Divisional Officer duly impounding the document under Section 47A. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Revenue Divisional Officer is not competent to impound the document as he does not answer the description of the expression ‘Collector’ under Section 2(9) of the Act. Section 2(9) defines the expression ‘Collector’, as including any officer whom the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf. 8. It is not disputed that earlier the Revenue Divisional Officers were empowered by virtue of a notification to discharge the powers of a Collector under Section 2(9) of the Act. Section 76(a) of the Indian Stamp Act enables the State Government to delegate the powers under the provisions of the Act, including the power under Section 2(9) (b). It is not disputed that the Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps issued a notification dated 27.02.2008 withdrawing the powers of the Sub-Collectors, Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors/R.D.Os incharge of Divisions, conferred under Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Act in exercise of the powers under clause (b) of sub-section (9) of Section 2 of the Act. It is, therefore, clear that the R.D.Os who were previously authorized to perform the functions of the Collector were, however, divested of the same by a notification issued by the Commissioner & Inspector General of Registration and Stamps. Letter No.S1/19311/2007 dated 27.02.2008 of the said notification is extracted in the text and the bare Act of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & the Registration Act, 1908 11th Edition 2011 (brought out by Sri P.V.Rama Raju). In the present case, the document dated 04.05.1990 was impounded by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal on 10.10.2003 which was prior to the withdrawal of the powers of the Revenue Divisional Officer under Section 2(9)(b) of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Revenue Divisional Officer had no competence to impound the document and, therefore, the certificate appended thereon is of no validity, is untenable. Section 42(2) of the Act states that every instrument so endorsed shall thereupon be admissible in evidence, and may be registered and acted upon and authenticated as if it had been duly stamped. Under sub- section (2) of Section 40 every certificate under clause (A) of sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence of the matters stated therein. As the document dated 04.05.1990 has been duly impounded and deficit stamp duty and penalty have been levied and collected and a certificate to that effect is duly appended thereon, the said document is admissible in evidence. So far as the other agreement of sale dated 07.03.1988 is concerned, the said document is executed on stamp paper worth Rs.5/-. 9. Article 47A was inserted by the A.P.Amendment Act 17 of 86 w.e.f. 16.08.1986. Explanation I to Article 47A states that 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 that article and the instrument of sale in pursuance of such agreement subsequently executed shall be chargeable with a duty of rupees five. Subsequently, the said explanation was substituted by Section 2(d) Indian Stamp (A.P) Amendment Act 21 of 1995 w.e.f 01.04.1995 by reiterating that 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 article, but, however, adding a proviso to the effect that where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shall be adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed. The subject document is an agreement of sale dated 07.03.1988, which is subsequent to the amendment coming into force under the A.P. Amendment Act 17 of 1986 w.e.f., 16.08.1986. However, the said document though sent to the RDO previously was not impounded and no stamp duty and penalty was levied thereon and no certificate was also appended by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the said document. As the said document was executed subsequent to 16.08.1986, the date on which the A.P. Amendment Act 17 of 1986 came into force inserting Article 47A and as the document recites that delivery of possession was effected on the date of the said document, the same is liable to be charged as a sale. The learned Senior Civil Judge took the view that as the document dated 04.03.1990 was already impounded and the document dated 07.03.1988 is in respect of the same subject matter, it cannot be impounded for the second time. It is to be noted that though the documents are in respect of the same subject matter, they are executed in favour of different persons on different dates, of course, by the same person. The document dated 04.05.1990, no doubt, makes a reference to the earlier document dated 07.03.1988. The agreement of sale dated 07.03.1988 was the earlier document under which possession is also delivered. As the two documents reflect to different transactions with different persons, they cannot be treated as one and the same for the purpose of impounding under the provisions of the Act. The agreement of sale dated 07.03.1988 specifically recites delivery of possession and is chargeable as an instrument of sale under Article 47A of the Act, as it was executed subsequent to introduction of Article 47 by way of amendment, the fact that subsequently the other document dated 04.05.1990 was impounded does not absolve the document dated 07.03.1988 from being charged with stamp duty as an instrument of sale because it is under the said document that possession has been delivered. The said document is, therefore, liable to be charged with stamp duty and penalty as instrument of sale, as otherwise it becomes inadmissible in evidence, for any purpose by virtue of the bar contained in Section 35 of the Stamp Act. 10. In the circumstances, the objection raised by petitioner/D-1 over the admissibility of the document dated 07.03.1988 is held sustainable and the objection raised regarding the other document dated 04.05.1990 is overruled. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 24th August, 2011 Lrkm.