HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5735 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order, dated 21.11.2008, passed by the Additional Judge, City Small Causes Court-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.S.No.436 of 2007, whereunder and whereby the agreement of sale, dated 22.12.2005, was allowed to be marked after collection of proper stamp duty and penalty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff contended that the agreement of sale does not provide for construction of a house or building and as such Schedule- I A of Article 6 (C) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’) applies. He further contended that as the agreement of sale was written on a stamped paper, there is no need to pay any penalty as stamp duty under Section 35 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in M.Hari Narayana V. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and etc[1], wherein it was held as under:- “From a reading of Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A, it is also clear that it is applicable only in relation to agreements for development/sale in relation to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. In the instant case, from the recitals of agreement of sale dated 28th of March 2011, it is clear that it is not an agreement for any of the purposes mentioned under Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as much as the value of the property was more than Rs.50,000/-, it makes no difference whether it falls within the ambit of Article 6(C) or 6(A), as in either case, the stamp duty prescribed is only Rs.100/-. The language used in Article 6(B) and also the judgment of this Court in Pechetti Ramakrishna’s case (supra), clearly supports the case of the petitioner that for the agreement dated 28th of March 2011, the chargeable duty indicated in Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A cannot be applied. In such an event, the further question which is to be considered by this Court is whether in view o the recitals of the agreement and in the absence of any endorsement on the agreement regarding delivery of possession, can such an agreement be construed as a sale within the meaning of explanation 1 to Article 47-A of Schedule I-A.” He also relied on the decision of this Court in Pechitti Ramakrishna V. Nekkanti Venkata Manohara Rao[2] wherein it is held as under: - “A careful reading of Article 6(B) of Schedule I-A of the Act goes to show that it is applicable if the agreement relates to construction of a house or building including a multi-unit house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. A further reading of the stamp duty payable specified in column No.2 also makes it clear that this provision was introduced in relation to the construction agreements or agreements of the like nature.” He further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Saranam Peda Appaiah v. S.Narasimha Reddy[3], wherein it is held as under: - “Article 6(B) is very clear in its expression that in case of any transactions relating to construction of a house etc., as mentioned in descriptive column of the instrument, the stamp duty required is Rs.5/- for every hundred or part thereof, of the market value or the estimated cost of proposed construction or development of such property as the case may be. Therefore, the question that calls for consideration is whether the said Article covers the agricultural land also. It is a cardinal principle of the interpretation that the provision interpreted with reference to the words contained in the provisions and by interpretative process, it is neither to be expanded nor constricted. When the Legislature has specifically referred to the document relating to construction of house, apartment, flat, portionof multi-storied building etc and the stamp duty is payable on the market value or the estimated cost of the said property, it has ot be confined only to houses, multi unit houses or apartment etc. Even the valuation was sought to be arrived at on the basis of the rates prescribed by the Public Works Department authorities. Further, it is noticed that the transactions left over by Article 6(B) are covered by Article 6(C). Therefore, it cannot also be said that there was vacuum in the Article. In the instant case, the agreement is after 01.04.1995, but it relates to the agricultural land.” Also, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Sardar Darshan Singh V. Sardar Ram Singh[4], wherein it is held as under: - “Having regard to the nature of the document and the recitals contained therein, it is now sought to be canvassed before me that the recitals attract the Article 6(B) of Schedule 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, obviously, the document is not sufficiently stamped inasmuch as it was admittedly stamped in accordance with the Article 6(A) thereof. Article 6 of the Scheudle 1-A of the Indian Stamp Act is the relevant Article, which deals with the agreement of memorandum of an agreement not otherwise provided for Clause (A) thereof gives the ad valorem.” 3. A perusal of Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act postulates the proper stamp duty for an agreement which relates to construction of a house or building including multi-storied house or building or unit of apartment/flat/portion of a multi-storied building or for development/sale of any other immovable property. 4. In the instant case, as seen from the agreement of sale, dated 22.12.2005, it is clear that the defendant agreed to sell the plaintiff the house property bearing No.8-4-370/73, admeasuring 75 square yards. Therefore, under the said agreement, the property agreed to be sold is a house, which is an immovable property. Hence, a plain reading of Article-6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act applies to this case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject document which is sought to be impounded for payment of stamp duty falls under Article 6(C) of Schedule-I-A of the Act is not sustainable. 5. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff have no application to the facts of the present case. Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act, has no application to the instant case. Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act postulates the payment of proper stamp duty in regard to the agreement or memorandum of an agreement that relates not only to construction of a house or building but also multi-storied house or building or the sale of any other immovable property. As such, Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Act applies to the agreement of sale in question since the property sought to be sold thereunder is a house, which is an immovable property. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 09th February, 2011 DR [1] 2008(2) ALD 515 [2] 2004(1) ALD 557 [3] 2004(6) ALT 237 (D.B.) [4] 2004(6) ALT 217