THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2340 OF 2011 Dated: 10.08.2011 Between: 1. K. Pedda Raghava Reddy and another. … Petitioners And 1. Smt. Paladugu Aruna and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2340 OF 2011 ORDER: The Revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.696 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the IX-Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Rangareddy District. The respondents herein/plaintiffs filed the said suit for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale dated 8.2.2006 in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants/revision petitioners in their written statement though admitted the execution of the agreement of sale, contended that the plaintiffs failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the time specified. During the trial, when the plaintiffs wanted to mark the agreement of sale, dated 8.2.2006 as an exhibit in evidence, the defendants/revision petitioners filed a Memo raising an objection for marking the document on the ground that the said agreement of sale was insufficiently stamped and unregistered. It was contended that as the possession of the property was delivered to the plaintiffs as reflected from the recitals of the agreement itself, the said document executed on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper was inadmissible in evidence. After hearing both the parties, the Court below while relying upon in CHERYALA SRINIVAS v. MOOLA SUJATHA AND OTHERS[1] held that since the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs only for the limited purpose of preparation of layout and dividing the land into residential plots, there was no effective delivery of possession and therefore the contention that the document was insufficiently stamped was untenable. Accordingly, the objection raised by the defendants was overruled by order dated 8.6.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, while relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in B. RATNAMALA v. G. RUDRAMMA[2] vehemently contended that Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 is attracted though there is no physical delivery of possession. The learned counsel has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in VEENA HASMUKH JAIN v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA[3]. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon CHERYALA SRINIVAS’s case (3 supra), A. VEMANAIDU v. ERRACHERUVUPALLE PRIMARY AGRI. CO-OP. SOCIETY[4] and SRI TIRUMALA HOUSING (P) LTD., HYDERABAD v. GPR HOUSING (P) LIMITED[5] in support of his submission that the document in question need not be chargeable as a sale. It is true that as per the Explanation-I to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, an agreement to sale followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a sale under Article 47-A. However the question whether the document is a mere agreement of sale or it is coupled with delivery of possession has to be decided with reference to the recitals in the document. Therefore, it is necessary to extract the relevant terms and conditions under the agreement of sale dated 8.2.2006: (1) … … Possession of the said land is delivered to the vendees this day for preparation of the layout and divide into residential plots., etc. (2) Soon after the plotting is over, the vendors shall execute sale deeds in respect of the plots in the said layout in favour of the prospective purchasers nominated by the vendees subject to payment of the proportionate consideration. The advance sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/- shall be adjusted at the end of the deed. (3) The vendors are solely responsible for clearance of taxes, cess or any other levies in respect of the said land till the date of delivery of possession to the vendees. (4) The vendors shall produce any documents that are necessary for registration of sale deeds in respect of the plots to the prospective purchasers.” A reading of the above recitals clearly shows that the possession was delivered to the plaintiffs only for the limited purpose of preparation of layout and dividing the land into residential plots, etc. Thus it is not a case where the possession was handed over to the plaintiffs with absolute rights, but the plaintiffs were put in possession only for certain specified purposes. Therefore, as rightly held by the Court below there was no effective delivery of possession so as to attract the Explanation-I to Entry 47-A. In B. RATNAMALA’S case (2 supra) the Division Bench was considering the correctness of the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge in M.A. GAFOOR v. MOHD. JANI & ORS. [ 1999 (1) ALD 159 ] in which the plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant and as per the agreement he need not pay rents after the agreement and he can also sub-let the premises to others. The Division Bench opined that by virtue of the agreement there was a total novation of not only the situation but also the relationship and the respective rights and obligations and that the factum of change of relationship leads to the inference of a change in the nature of possession even if it were to be taken as a symbolic delivery. While observing that a symbolic delivery may also amount to actual delivery in given circumstances, the Division Bench concluded that in M.A. GAFOOR’S case there was delivery of possession attracting the Explanation-I. The said decision of the Division Bench which was rendered in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion has no relevance for the purpose of the case on hand. Similarly the ratio laid down in VEENA HASMUKH JAIN’S case (3 supra) has also no bearing on the question involved in the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the conclusion of the Court below that the document in question need not be charged as sale has not suffered from any apparent error of fact or law and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 10.08.2011 gbs [1] 2010 (1) ALD 246 [2] 1999 (6) ALD 160 (DB) [3] (1999) 5 SCC 725 [4] 2002 (5) ALT 406 [5] 2006 (5) ALD 359