Heard Mr. K' Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy' leamed counsel' appearing for Mr v. Seetha Rama Avadhani' leamed

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in 0.S No.01 ot 2024 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda pending disposal of this Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.VIJAYA BHASKAR, appearing SRI V.SEETHARAMA AVAOHANI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI T.ASHOK REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER ,,= THE HONOURABI,E, SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYST N REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.I670 OF- 2{)25 ORDER: Petitioner herein is plaintifland respondent is defenclant in O.S. No. I of 2024 pending on the filc ol the leamed I Additiona Disrrict Judge, Nalgonda,, filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated

26.09.2020

2. For convenience sake, the parties are hereinaftcr referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial Court. 3 The plaintiff instituted the suit for specific perlbrmance of the agreement of sale dated 26.09.2020 seeking for a direction to the defendant to perform the terms of the contract and to execute registered sale deed in favour of the ptaintiff in respect of the suit land adnteasuring Ac. l-20 guntas situated at Kurmedu Vitlage of Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District (hereinafter ref-erred to as'subject land'). In thc plaint averments, the plaintiff pleaded that he entered into the agreement of sale with the defendant for purchasing the subject land for a total sale consideration of Rs.95,00,000/- (Rupees ninety five takhs only). A sum ol'Rs.23,75,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs seventy five thousand only) rvas paid by the plaintiff to the def'endant towards advance sale consideration. The balance J t"--: BvRJ cRP 1670 2025 sale consideration of Rs.71,25,,000/- (Rupees seventy one lakhs twenty five 2 thousand only) was agreed to be paid within four (4) months from the date of the agreement. Prior to registration, the subject land shall be measured, bodndaries have to be determined and the defendant has to show all original title deeds and 'No Protected Tenancy Certificates' to the plaintiff. The balance sale consideration will be paid by the plaintiff as per the land available on ground afier measurement and possession of the subject land will be delivered to make layout for the purpose of development. It was further pleaded that alter making layout, a plot admeasuring 125 square yards will be registered in lavour of the defendant. The plaintiff also pleaded that pursuant to the agreement of sale, he invested Rs.2,00,0001 (Rupees two lakhs only) towards development of the subject land for levelling the ground to draw a layout. The defendant committed breach of terms of agreement. The defendant lailed to measure the subject land and no boundaries were fixed. Further, the defendant failed to show original title deeds including 'no protected tenancy certificate'. As the defendant committed default in abiding by the terms of the agreement of sale dated

26.09.2020,Iegal notice dated 26.05.2023 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant to perform the terms and conditions of the agreement. As there was no response to the legal notice, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. (RP 16708:BI 4. The plaintifl intended to mark the agreemr:nt of sale daled

26.09.2020. The trial Court having perused the contents of the agreement ofsale, passed thc impugned docket order dated 24.03.2(i25 by recording a finding that the agreement of sale dated 26.09.2020 includes transfer of possession, but has been executed on a Rs. 100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper and it is insufficiently stamped; the agreement of sale is required to be impounded as per the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the office was directed to collect deficit stamp duty and penalty. In the impugned docket order of the trial Court, it is noted that the plainti 1' paid an amount of Rs.23,75,000/- towards advance sale consideration out ol-the total sale consideration of Rs.95,00,000/-; the balance sale consideration of Rs.71,25,000/- was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff within lbur (4) months from the date of agreement; the penultimate second clause of the agreement specifically refers to delivery ol possession ol'entire extent of Ac.1-20 guntas of the subject land lbr the purpose ol development; additionatly, it refers only a plot of [25 square yards shall be rcgistered in favour of the defendant after the layout is finalised. The trial Court further noted that the said clause primarily refers to delivery ol lrssession of the subject land for development purpose; it also further ustablishes future obligation to register a specific plot of 125 square yards rcserved in favour :.{"; 4 BvRJ cRP 1670_2025 of the defendant which indicates that possession of the subject land was delivered and the agreement is not merely for deveropment but also an agreement of sale with possession' and therefore' it attracts stamp duty under the tndian StamP Act'

5. Heard Mr. K' Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy' leamed counsel' appearing for Mr. V. Seetha Rama Avadhani' leamed counsel for the petitioner - ptaintiff, Mr' T. Ashok Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondent defendant, and perused the material on record possesslOn 6 The leamed counsel appearing for plaintilf submitted that actual of the subject land was not delivered to the plaintiff The recitals of the agreement of sale were not property appreciated by the trial Court. The plaintiff was given symbolic possession of the subject land There was no transfer of actual for the purpose of development of layout' and physicat possession of the subject land'

7. The leamed counsel lor the defendant submitted that recitals of the agreement of sale clearly show that possession of the subject land was delivered to the plaintiff' Hence' the document engrossed on Rs'100/- Non Judicial Stamp paper is insufficiently stamped and is liable to be impounded, and, thus there is no elror committed by trc trial Court in ) BVR.I cRP 1670 2025 passing the impugned docket order.

8. As per the recitals of the agreement of sale tlated 26 '09 '2020, balance sale consideration of Rs.71,25,0001 was to be pard by the plaintiff to the defendant, upon which the defendant shall handovcr title documents and deliver possession of the subject tand by executing salc dced in favour of the plaintiff or his nominees. It was further stated that belbre the sale deed is registered, the subject land wilt be measured and boundaries will be fixed; original documents viz.., patadar pass books antl title deeds, No Protected Tenancy Certificate etc., will be handed ovc|. to the plaintiff. After measurement of the land, if it is found that extent ol'the subject land is less than Ac.l-20 guntas, the plaintiff shall pii)' balance sale consideration only for the actual extent of the land on the rlround, for which sale deed shall be registered by the defendant. At tlrc bonom of the agreement of sale, a note was appended stating that on thc same day, the subject land was handed over to the plaintiff and as per trc understanding, after developing the layout, a plot of 125 square yards shall be registered in lavour of the defendant. Irl \ F--.1 6 BVRJ cRP 16?0 202s 9. The trial Courr held that possession was delivered to the plaintiff - n for developing the layout and further plaintiff agreed to deliver 125 square yards of plot to the defendant, and thus there was actual delivery of posSession of the subject land by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.

10. In unnumbered clause - I of page 2 of the agreement of sale dated26.09.2020, it is clearly mentioned that possession of the subject land will be delivered to the plaintiff after receiving payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.7l,25,000/- within lour (4) months and the title documents will be handed over to the plaintiff. ll. In the opinion of this Court, possession of the subject land was delivered to the plaintiff only lor the purpose ofdeveloping the land into a layout. Recitals of the agreement of sale do not indicate that actual and physical possession of the subject land was delivered to the plaintiff. The trial Court erred in giving much emphasis to the 'Note' in the agreement of salc and ignoring the main recitals regarding payment of balance sale consideration, measurements, handing-over title documents and delivery of possession, as discussed above. Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial Court for impounding the agreement of sale dated

26.09.2020 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside 7 DVR.J cRP 1670 2025

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the admission stage itself, setting aside the impugncd dt,cket order dated

24.03.2025 passed by the trial Court. No order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, il any, pending in the civil revision petition stand closed. SD/- M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -\{ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda' 2. One CC to Sri V. Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate [OPU']l 3. One CC to Sri T.Ashok Reddy ,Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/I'SL HIGH COURT DATED:0910912025 ORDER CRP.No.1670 of 2025 :r \, ti $ti 215 J /' Il: I'G \} \ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION olM