IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICIATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4159 OF 2010 Between:- Chalasani Jayapradha …Petitioner A n d Kosaraju Purnachandra Rao and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4159 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 02-08-2010 in I.A.No.207 of 2010 in O.S.No.389 of 2004, on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Visakhapanam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (D-2) under Order XIII Rule 8 CPC read with Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to impound the documents dated 10-10-1993 and 13-10- 1993, was allowed, directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty and penalty treating the document dated 10-10-1993 as ‘release deed’. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed the suit for partition of plaint ‘A’ schedule property. The petitoner/D-2 and other defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled. During the course of defendants’ evidence, document dated 10-10-1993 was sought to be exhibited as an agreement. The plaintiff objected for the same on the ground that it purports to be a release deed requiring stamp duty and registration. The petitioner/D-2 filed I.A.No.207 of 2010 under Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act requesting the Court to impound the document or to send the same to the District Collector for the purpose of impounding. The trial Court, instead of sending the document to the District Collector for impounding, however, directed the petitoner/D-2 to pay stamp duty and penalty treating the document in question as release deed. 4. A perusal of the document dated 10-10-1993 would show that the site in Sy.No.11/7A situate in Butchirajupalem originally belonged to Movva Ramachandra Rao, Paturi Butchi Babu and Chalasani Jayaparda and it was agreed between M.Ramchandra Rao and P.Butchi Babu that M.Ramachandra Rao would forego his part of the site for a consideration of Rs.4 lakhs. It is further averred in the said document that the said payment shall be made to M.Ramachandra Rao by P.Butchi Babu as per schedule mentioned therein i.e., Rs.1 lakh before 15-10-1993, Rs.1 lakh before 15-11- 1993 and Rs.2 lakhs before 15-01-1994. It is stated that the first installment of Rs.1 lakh was paid under a receipt dated 13-10-1993. It is not known whether the remaining two installments were paid or not. 5. Be that as it may, the document purports to be an agreement to release the share of M.Ramachandra Rao in favour of P.Butchi Babu for a consideration of Rs.4 lakhs, the schedule of which is also mentioned in the document. Thus, until and unless the process of payment of consideration as mentioned in the document is completed, the proposed release of his share in the site by M.Ramachandra Rao does not come into effect. Thus, by construing the recitals in the document, the conclusion is inescapable that no release of rights in the immoveable property was effected under the document by M.Ramachandra Rao in favour of P.Butchi Babu and that such release would take place on payment of consideration as mentioned in the document. Thus, the document dated 10-10-1993 does not operate as a release deed as such extinguishing the rights of M.Ramachandra Rao in the said site, but it is only an agreement to release subject to the payment of consideration as stated therein. The impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge, treating the document as release deed and directing the petitoner/D-2 to pay the stamp duty and penalty as such, is, therefore, unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The subject document dated 10-10-1993 shall be treated as an agreement and necessary stamp duty and penalty be levied accordingly. It is left open to the respondents to raise all other objections regarding the admissibility of the document in evidence at the appropriate time before the trial Court. 6. The civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th February, 2011 Lrkm.