HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6028 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 21-10- 2010 passed in I.A.No.261 of 2009 in O.S.No.506 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C read with Section 35 of the Stamp Act. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that Mohammad Abdul Razaak agreed to sell the suit schedule property for Rs.32,000/- and received Rs.10,000/- on 10-02-1998 and another sum of Rs.10,000/- on 13-12-2001 and executed an agreement of sale dated 13-12-2001. Subsequently, the said Mohammad Abdul Razaak executed a registered sale deed on 22-06-2002, after receiving the entire sale consideration. The first defendant is stated to be the daughter of Mohammad Abdul Razaak. The petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.No.261 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C read with Section 35 of the Stamp Act seeking the following relief:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly pass order for examination of contents of the document and decide the nature of the document dated: 13th December 2001 filed by petitioner herein in the above suit, in the interest of justice.” The respondents-defendants filed counter resisting the application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, dismissed the application by order dated 21-10-2010. Hence this revision. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 31-12-2010. Respondents entered appearance through their counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the document sought to be admitted in evidence is only an agreement of sale and as the petitioner-plaintiff is prepared to pay the stamp duty penalty, there cannot be any impediment for the Court to receive the same in evidence. Learned counsel refers Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1883 (for short T.P.Act) in support of his contention that the instrument dated 13-12-2001 is not a sale deed but only an agreement of sale. For better appreciation, I may refer Section 54 of T.P.Act which reads as hereunder:- “54. " Sale" defined. Sale how made.-" Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part- paid and part- promised. Sale how made.- 1[ Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. 1[ In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” By referring Section 54 of T.P.Act, the learned counsel contends that the instrument dated 13-12-2001 is liable to be stamped under Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 and not as per Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants submits that the petitioner-plaintiff claims to be in possession of the property and therefore the instrument dated 13-12-2001 is to be treated as sale deed, in which case, the instrument is inadmissible in evidence, for want of proper stamp duty and also for want of registration. The question that arises for consideration is whether the instrument dated 13-12-2001 is a sale deed or an agreement of sale. The contents of the instrument reads that Mohammad Abdul Razaak received Rs.10,000/- under the instrument and agreed to execute a registered sale deed by receiving the remaining amount of Rs.12,000/- before the office of Sub-registrar. The contents of the document do not indicate that the possession has been delivered to the petitioner herein. Therefore the instrument cannot be categorized as sale deed as defined in Section 54 of T.P.Act, in which case, the instrument comes within the meaning of an agreement of sale and the same is liable for stamp duty as per Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989. When the petitioner is prepared to pay the stamp duty penalty, there cannot be any impediment in permitting the petitioner-plaintiff to pay the stamp duty penalty. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 21-10-2010 and consequently I.A.No.261 of 2009 stands allowed. The petitioner-plaintiff has to pay the stamp duty and penalty on the instrument treating as an agreement of sale, as provided under Article 6 of Schedule I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY 11th March, 2011 VJL