THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.440 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.26 of 2007 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 06-06-1994. He has also filed I.A.No.79 of 2007, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., with a prayer to grant temporary injunction against the respondents, prohibiting them from alienating the suit schedule property. At the stage of hearing of the I.A., the trial Court took an objection, as to the admissibility of the agreement of sale, on the ground that it was not properly stamped. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court passed an order dated 02-09-2009, directing the petitioner to get the document impounded, for the purpose of collection of stamp duty. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the agreement of sale dated 06-06-1994, relied upon by the petitioner, evidences not only the delivery of possession, but also payment of the entire sale consideration. Therefore, irrespective of the nomenclature given to it, it answers the description of sale deed, from the limited point of view of the payment of stamp duty. In M. Madusudan Reddy v. M. Kamalamma[1], this Court dealt with this very aspect, in detail; and in another case following the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, in paragraph 5, held that, if an agreement of sale evidences delivery of possession of the property, stamp duty payable on a sale deed must be paid. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order under revision. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-06-2010. KO [1] 2004 (1) A.P.L.J. 296