The High Court · 2025

.RespondenUPlaintiff l.A. NO: 1 O F 201S(CRPMP. NO: 7608 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 78 of 2O14 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Warangal, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision petition. Gounsel for the Petitioners: SRI BOTLA VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: SRI S A V RATNAM The Court made the following: ORDER THII HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5803 of 2015 ORDER: This civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by rhe Docket order dat.ed 28.10.2015 in o.S.No.7S of z0r4 passed by rhe learned l'' Additional District Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Sri.B.venkateswara Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner/defendant and Smt.S.A.v.Ratnam, learned counsel for respondenVplaintiff. Perused the record.

3. 'rhe facts of the case in a nutshell are that pwl was examirred and Exs.Al to A5 were marked. During the course of marking ol the said documents, as the respondent/plaintiff relied upon the original agreement of sale dated 06.1 I .2013 and the same was en.grossed on Rs.100/- Indian Non-Judicial Starnp executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and during the course of rnarking of the said documenrs an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant for markinli the documents stating that the agreement of sale, \ 2 NNR,I C.R.P.No.5803 of 2015 requires registration and payment of stamp duty and the document is engraved on insufficient stan"rp. The learned Judge, having heard both sides held that the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant was not sustainable on the ground that Ex.Al was engraved on the stamp worth of Rs.100/- which was sufficient, as laid down under Section 17 and the same can be receirred in the evidence under Section 49 of [ndian Evidence Act. Having rejected the above objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant, the learned Judge rnarked the said agreement of sale as Ex.Al

4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Judge, the present revision is filed contending that the agreement of sale is inadmissible on account of insufficient stamp duty and non-registration; therefore, the same could not have been marked in the evidence and further averred that Sectior-r 49 of lndian Evidence Act has nothing to do with the objection raised and reliance on the same for the purpose of overruling the objection as patently erroneous and the trial Court has committed serious illegality in recording the finding that stamp worth Rs.100/- is sufficient for aJ NNR,J C.R.P.No.5803 of 2015 agreerrrent of sale and thereby committed jurisdictional error in overruling the objection made by the petitioner/defendant and procee,led with marking the same as Ex.A l. It is further contended that th,: agreement of sale sought to be marked is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and therefore, ought to have been impounded under Section 33 of the said Act before marking the said document, as held by the Hon'ble Suprenre Court in the Judgment reported in 2008 (9) SCC 401 and further averred that the present case is chargeable under Article 6(8) ot'Schedule l-A of the Stamp Act. Hence, prayed to allow the Revision

5. l\dmittedly, the subject suit was filed for specific perfornrance of the contract of sale, basing on the agreement of sale, which is said to have been executed by the petitiorer/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and the value of the suit schedule property was fixed at Rs.56,75,000/-. It is averred that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid through a cheque bearing No.970772 dated 06.11.2013 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Nakkalautta Branch of Hanamkonda towards part 4 NNR,J C.R.P.Na5803 of 20tS payment as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale' Subsequentry, the defendant was arso paid a sum of Rs'13,00,000/- on r3. rr.2or3 and agreed to pay Rs.r0,00,000/- by 06'12'2013 and remaining balance i.e., Rs.3 r,75,000/- to be paid within 90 days to get the registration.

6. Adrnittedly, the said agreement was executed in hand writing engrossed on Rs.100/- Non-Judiciar Starnp paper. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that inspite of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant at the time of marking of the document, rearned Judge, without considering the objection, has proceeded to mark the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the learned Judge held that the same can be received in evidence under section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as foilows:

49. Opinions os to usages, tenets, elc., when relevanl. l[rhen the court has to fornt an opinion as to - the usages ancr renets of any body of nten or famiry, the constitution and governnrcnt of any religiou's or charitabre foundation, or the meaning of words or terms used in particular districts or by particurar "tirri, of peopre, the opinions of persons having special means .of.lcnowledgi ,hnuon, ,r, relevontfacts. , 5 NNR,J C.R.P.No.5803 of 2015 lt is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that Sectjon ,19 of lndian Evidence Act is no way relevant to the present c.lse and the leamed Judge has also referred to Section l7 of the Incian Stamps Act, 1899, which reads as follows: Section l7 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, states that any inslrument thut is chargeable with stamp duty and is executed in India rnust be stamped ,zither before or at the time of its execution. It is a legal ret1uirem<:nt lo ensure that all documents lilce contracts, deeds, and othe," instruments are properly stamped to be legally valid and adm.;ssibl,t in court. which relates to the instrument executed in India and in respect of Section 17 o1' Registration Act, it relates to documents of which registratic,n is compulsory and in the present case, as it is only an agreement of sale without possession, admittedly, the said agreemenl of sale is without possession, as such the question of applicability of Section 17 of Indian Stamps Act does not arise. Even, if the Section l7 of Registration Act is invoked, question of marking c,f documents would not have arisen as it is insufficiently stamped. Learned Judge committed an effor by taking into consideration of irrelevant section L7 of Indian Stamps Act and Section 4) o1' Indian Evidence Act and rejecting the objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant, as admittedly, the 6 NNR,J C.R.P-No-5803 of 20t5 said agreelnent, which is executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper and the sale consideration for the said agreement of sale is Rs.56,75,000/- (Rupees Fifty six lakhs seventy five thousand only) and even as per Article 6(8) of Schedule l-A of the Stamp Act, the Memorandum of Agreement and even considering the same, there is deficit stamp duty, which is to be paid. Though the said agreement of sale does not require any registration and even as per Article 6(8) of schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act there is deficit sramp duty ro be paid.

7. Though the learned counsel for respondent has contended that the said agreement is properly stamped but the Stamp Act would clearly show that the stamp duty which is fixed is insufficiently stamped and as the Courts are bound to collect the stamp duty whenever any document is produced before the Court for taking the same into evidence. In such case, as the Courts are duty bound to see that the deficit stamp duty is collected either by way of itself or by sending the same to the Collector or District Registrar for impounding the said document, if the party intends to present the said document for taking it as evidence. No instrument 7 NNR,J C.f.P.No.5803 of 2015 charge'able shall be admitted in evidence for any purpose for the reason that the said stamp duty, which is deficit, has to be paid.

8. [n the present case, as the petitioner is seeking the relief of specific performance of the agreement of contract and that too for the purpose of specific performance of the contract the said agreenlent has to be sufficiently stamped, unless and until the same is not sufficiently stamped, the same cannot be received in evidenoe. In view of the same, the docket order passed by the Court below is erroneous on the face of it and the same is deserves to be set asi,Je. 'Ihe learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contenrled that he would submit relevant information with regard to the actual deficit stamp duty that is payable for the purpose of marking and receiving the said documents into evidence.

9. In view of the above observations, the civil Revision Petitiorr is allowed, and the docket order dated 29.10.2015 in o.S. No.78 ,tf 2014 passed by rhe learned I Additional District Judge, waranp;al, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial court, which is directed to collect the required stamp duty on its own. There shall be no order as to costs.,, 8 NNR,I C.RP.No.5803 ol20l5 Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR ---4 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Warangal. 2. One CC to Sri Botla Venkateswara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S A V Ratnam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABKTSa -tw HIGH COURT DATED: 23l10t2}zs /a ORDER CRP.No.5803 of ZOlS $ '?"cJr\'triE !/< "cL\ | 1 I Ii:B 2t)26 * ( '- .Y * ALLOWING TI.IE CRP ./ <s t:>l--l z-c