HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1463 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District in O.S.No. 951 of 2002 dated 24.08.2007, impounding the document dated 22.06.2002 on the ground that it was not adequately stamped. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 951 of 2002 filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale of the Suit Schedule property of an extent of Ac.3.02 gts. in Sy.Nos.360 and 365 of Thakadlapally Village, Yacharam Mandal. The petitioner-plaintiff entered into the agreement of sale with respondents-defendants on 04.12.2001, whereby the respondents-defendants are said to have agreed to sell the Suit Schedule land for Rs.3.00 lakhs already paid to them by the petitioner-plaintiff. Subsequently, another agreement was entered into on 22.06.2002 wherein a reference is made to the earlier agreement dated 04.12.2001. Under the agreement dated 22.06.2002, the respondents-defendants agreed that, in case they failed to repay the sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs by 22.09.2002, they would effect registration of the sale deed. The petitioner-plaintiff contended before the Court below that, in the light of Section 35(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) and, since the subsequent agreement dated 22.06.2002 was in continuation of the earlier agreement dated 04.12.2001 which was adequately stamped, the subsequent document dated 22.06.2002 could not be subjected to stamp duty again and was admissible in evidence. The Court below, in its order under Revision, held that Section 35 of the Act had no application; the transaction of an agreement of sale and the subsequent agreement were not one and the same; the second document was an independent agreement which provided that, in the event of failure as agreed upon, the plaintiff was entitled to seek specific performance; since the subsequent document was on a stamp paper of Rs.10/- it must be held to be not properly stamped; and as the stamp duty under the relevant article was Rs.100/- the petitioner-plaintiff had to pay the stamp duty as provided for under the Act. Sri T. Venkat Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff, would refer to the proviso to Section 35 of the Act to contend that the second document dated 22.06.2002 was merely in continuation of the earlier agreement of sale dated 04.12.2001; the subsequent agreement not only refers to but is in continuation of the earlier agreement of sale; and, in such circumstances, the second document dated 22.06.2002 need not be stamped to be admissible in evidence. Section 35 of the Act provides that instruments not duly stamped shall be inadmissible in evidence and thereunder no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having, by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence, or shall be acted upon, registered or authenticated by any such person or by any public officer, unless such instrument is duly stamped. Section 35, however, excludes instruments referred to in clauses (a) to (e) from the rigour of the Section. Under clause (c), of the proviso to Section 35, where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence consisting of two or more letters, and any one of the letters bears the proper stamp, the contract or agreement shall be deemed to be duly stamped. Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 35 comes into operation only where a contract or agreement of any kind is effected by correspondence through letters in which event, if one of the letters is properly stamped, the second and the one following would also be deemed to have been duly stamped. Clause (c) creates a legal fiction of the subsequent letter being properly stamped if the first letter, which forms part of the said correspondence, is adequately stamped. Clause (c) has no application herein. The agreement, in the case on hand, has not been effected by way of correspondence between the parties, much less in the form of two or more letters addressed to each other. They are both documents on which both the parties have affixed their signatures. Further, while the earlier agreement dated 04.12.2001 is an agreement of sale for consideration of Rs.3.00 lakhs, the subsequent document dated 22.06.2002 is conditional, in the sense that registration of the document would arise only on failure of the respondents- defendants to pay the amount borrowed of Rs.3.00 lakhs by 22.09.2002. Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 35 is not attracted to the case on hand. As such the conclusion of the Court below that the subsequent document dated 22.06.2002 is not properly stamped cannot be faulted, nor does the act of the Court below in impounding the document necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:01-07-2010 usd