IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH (28TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.234 of 2011 Between: Beeravolu Linga Reddy & others … Petitioners And: N. Prasanna Raju … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.234 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is ﬁled assailing the order dated 10.11.2010 in OS No.44 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, wherein the learned Additional District Judge, passed docket order, holding that the document dated 07.10.2010 is a receipt, which was duly stamped as such and no additional stamp duty is required to be paid. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein ﬁled suit for recovery of Rs.13,40,000/- based on the receipt dated 25.01.2006 said to have been executed by ﬁrst defendant and receipt dated 11.02.2006 said to have been executed by 2nd defendant. The defendant ﬁled written statement, contesting the suit. During the trial and in the court of evidence of PW.1, plaintiﬀ produced document dated 07.10.2010 purporting to be a receipt allegedly evidencing receipt of Rs.4 lakhs towards advance. The defendant opposed the admission of the said document into evidence on the ground that it is insuﬃciently stamped and required to be stamped as an agreement. By impugned order, the trial court held that the said document dated 7.10.2010 is only a receipt and duly stamped as such and does not require additional stamp duty. 4. A perusal of the said evidence would disclose that the rate was ﬁxed at Rs.7,30,000/- per acre and the agreement of sale is to be entered into after taking necessary measurements and in the meanwhile advance of Rs.4 lakhs is paid and the same is acknowledged. The said document does not therefore contain any terms or conditions pertaining to the alleged transaction of sale from which any rights ﬂow but merely contemplates execution of the sale agreement on a future date after the extent is ascertained on proper measurements. The document does not seek to create, declare or assign or extinguish any rights in the property. It merely records factum of payment of Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance and contemplates the execution of the regular agreement of sale on a future date after taking necessary measurements. 5. In the circumstances, irrespective of the nomenclature used to describe the document and going by the contents thereof, it must be held that the document purports to be only a receipt for payment of Rs.4,00,000/- towards advance and cannot be construed as a regular agreement of sale. The impugned docket order, holding that no additional stamp duty is required to be paid because the document is duly stamped as a receipt, does not therefore, call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.11.2011 bss