The High Court · 2025

Smt. Nimmala Uma Rani, Wo Late N. Sailu, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Household. Sri MR. Nimmala Vamshi Mohan, S/o Late N. Sailu. Aged about 25 years. Occ. Private Employee. Mrs. Nimmala Anusha, D/o Late N.Sailu, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Private Employee. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are R/o H.No.3-6-27111, Plot No.3132, S.B.H Colony, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy-500074. Sri Raparthi Venkanna, S/o Narasaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-5-80, Goud's Bazar, Suryapet Town and District-508213. ; I L I I 7

6. 9mt. Dud.igalg !y1av-ag!, Wo Laxmaiah, Aged about 4{i years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.3-59, Venkapally Village, Nutankt,l M-andal, Suryapet District.S08213

7. Smt. Y-qlgqm Umagn!, Wo Upender, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Househotd, R/o H.No.'1-1-41212, Ganesh Nagar, Suryapet Town dnd District_508213. 8 Sri Byru.Saldqlr, S{q Janaiah, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.1-4-90. Opp. Vanijya Bhavan, Suryapet fown and District_s0ti2I3. 9. Smt. H.a11q Tagt99q1, S/o Hameed-bin-Abud, Aged about,{7 years, Occ. Ho,usehold, R/o H.No.1-4-9411, Market Road, Suryapet fowri anA'Olstiict_ 508213. 10 Smt Y 9q^llvg .Egni, Wo Radhakrishna, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.5-64, Valmidi Village, palakurttry l/aridat, jangam District-506222. 1 1 . Sri.Godugu !y1esh, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 3g years, C)cc. Business, R/o. - Velugupatty Vittage, Thungathurthy Mandal, Suryarpet O sr:rict_SOAieb.-'

12. Sri B Nageshwar Rao, S/o Bikshamaiah, Aged about 5.1 ,/ears, Occ. Agricutturer R/o H. No. 3 1 - 1 54, Bheemaram Village, Kethe jiaity lrtinOaf , Nalgonda District-508374 13 Sri Challa Srln1vas, S/o Rangaiah, aged about Sl years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No 1 -4-249154tC1, Balali Nagar, S-uryapet Town' and ilistrict_SOeZ t g-' - '14. Smt. Lakawath Kanthamani, Wo Ramdhan, Aged abour 4.0 years, Occ Household, R/o H.No.1-5-.105/1 1, Saradhi l.iag-ar, Khammam Town and Districr507003 H.No 1-104/A. pedda Amberpet, Rariga Reddy Disirict_tiOf SOS.

15. Sri Burra Matlesh, S/o Venkataiah, Aged about Sg years, t)cc. Driver, R/o - ' '- 16.Sri Vandanlpu Krishna, S/o_Bikshamaiah, Aged about 2g years, Occ. pvt. '- Emp-loyee. R/o H No 3{0, Ravipahad, Moth6 Mandal, Su{,apet'OiJtiict 508212

17. Sri G. Bala Nagender. S/o Venkateshwarlu, Aqed about 31 vears. Occ tsusiness. R/o H No.1-5-83. Goud,s Bazar, Sufoapet Toryrr dnd District_ 508280

18. Sri Balaji Lakawath, S/o Ramchander, Aged about 32 years. Occ. Emolovee -' R/o Masapuram Vifiage, Thungamurt6y Mandal, Suryap,:i Dl"t*ttOSU tid 19.Smt. T. Anusha, Wo Nagar Mohan, Aged_ about 32 years, Occ. Househotd, B/o H No 1-7-2o6tA1/1 , iakeer HussainNagii Sn-ri+air"*", Srryip"i- Town and District-508280 20 Sm! B. Anusha. Wo Srujan,Aged abo_ut 2g years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.2-6-59, Krishna Tati:s, Suryapet Town 6nd Oisirtct.SCAZAO. -' - 21. Smt. E. Navatha, Wo Vamshidhar Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Househotd, R/o H No 5-9, Jaagireddy Grjrjefi, ftrimmapur.im ViflJg;, Suryapet Drstrict-508280.

22. Sri P. Praveen Kumar, S/o Ven Employee, R/o H.No.'l-6-14 i/2 508280 gaiah, Aged about 39 yean;, Occ. pvt. 3, Bypass Road, Surydpet lown and Distnct-

23.Sri P. 9rinath, S/o Bramhaji, {Oed a.Qggt S+ years, Occ. Business, R/o plot \9,7-!n s, Begumpet, Beside S-reenidh i Grodnd, trlao nipui-ivJJ;d;_' -'

24.Union Bankof lndia, Rep. by_its branch Manager, Kuda Kuda Branch, Kuda Kuda Road Suryapet Town,-Suryapet District_E0d28O

25. Smt. Rgqllka_ya.rikevalli, W/o. Venkatesh, Aged about 24 years, Occ-. H-ou-sehotd, R/o H.No.6-25, Aipur, Atamakur-S Uanoii, Su[JpEt oiJiri"t_ 508221.

26. Smt. Raparthi.Chandrakala, Wo Ramulu, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Household, R/o H.No.1-5^-80, Gouda Bazbr,?oota Gnter'Ro;d, Sr.yrpet Town and Districl508213 27 Smt- Danawath Sri Latha, Wo Hariya, Aged about 3i years, Occ. Govt. Servant, R/o H.No.2-1-32't, Chandrbnnaiunta, Suryafet rown inO Oiiirtct_ 508213.

28.9ri P. Srinivasa Raju, S/o paftam Raju,_Aged about 35 years, Occ. Business, -' R/o H.No '16-'141140/6, Sriram Nagai, Su-ryapet Town dnd Districts08213. Z9 lmJ tvtl!ir9!.0.y Gowthami, Wo Sreekanth Reddy, Aged about 4 j years, Occ - Tailor, Rl/o H.No.16-141, Vidya Nagar, Suryapettow:n and DistrictlSOS2'te 30. Smt Gundago.ni Madavi,_Wo. Saidulu, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o Panagal, Nalgonda District. ...Respondent Nos.2 to 30/Defendant Nos.6 to 34 (Not necessary paries) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated ,n the affidavit fired. in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all the further proceedings in the suit in o.S No.1 1 ol 2021 on the frle of the court of Hon'ble prl. District Judge at suryapet, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHATK MADAR, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondent No.1: JANARDHAN REDDY KOTHA, ADVOCATE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRT JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL RE VISION PETITION No.2067 0F 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners - defendant Nos. I to 5 seeking to set aside the order in C)'S' No'l I of 2O2l dated 09.06.2025 passed by the leamed Principal District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet (for short 'Trial Court')'

2.HeardMr.ShaikMadar,leamedcounselforthLepetitioners' and Mr. Janardhan Reddy Kotha, learned counsel for the respondent No. I , and perused the rltaterial on record' 3 For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as in O.S. No. I I ot' l0ll

4. The irnptrgned docket order dated 09'06'2021i was passed by the Triat Cotrrt as objection was raised by the leamed counsel for the defendant Nos. I to 5 - petitioners for marking of ag'eement of sale dated 17.0 1.2018, contending the document requires deficit stamp duty and penalty and cannot be marked' The Trial (lourt noted that initiatly objection was raised regarding the adnilssibility of the 2 document for registration, and tho order dated 27 .09.2024 was passed by the Trial Court, wherein, it was held that agreement of sale does not require any registration as saleable rights were not given to the purchasers under the document and they were only given authorization to divide the land into plots. Further, the Trial Court noted that the defendant Nos.l to 5 - petitioners preferred C.R.P. No.3460 of 2024 before this Court, which was dismissed by the order dated I I .11 .2024 holding that document is an agreement without possession and it does not require any registration. However, liberty was given to the defendant Nos,l to 5 to raise objections about payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty on document be lore the Trial Court.

5. The Trial Court relying upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.l'}. No.l460 of 2024 dated 11.11.2024 and also the judgments relicd upon by the leamed counsel for the plaintiff and leamed counsel lor defendant Nos.l to 5 held that the document i-e., agreement o[ sale is without any possession, and it does not require any stamp duty and penalty. It was also held that the agreernent of sale is covered under Article 47A Schedule l-A of the lndian Stamp 3 Act 1899 (for short 'the Stamp Act') and it was engrossed on Non- Judicial stamp papers of worth Rs.300/- and it does rot require any further stamp dutY.

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners - defende.nt Nos'l to 5 submitted that the order passed by the Trial Cour: is erroneous' without considering welt-estabtished principte of larv' The said agreement requires stamp duty and penalty under the provisions of the Stamp Act. The Trial Court faited to consider lhe judgments relied upon by the det'endant Nos. I to 5 - petitioners and failed to appreciate that specific recital in the agreement of sale that possession will be taken ovcr by respondent No'l ' plaintiff and should convert the land into plots and sell them. It was also recited in the receipt dated 27.05.1018 that respondent No' I - plaintiffpaid second instalhnent ol Rs.l ,10'00,000/- (Rupees orre crore thirty lakhs only) to the det-endant No l - petitioner No.l hLerein, and it is crystal clear that possession ol'the land was handed over to the plaintiff - respondent No. I and liable to pay stamp dury and penalty' 4 7 . Leamed counsel for the respondent No.l _ plaintiff submitted that in C.R.p. No.3460 of 2024 dated 11.il.2024, this Court affirmed rhat in the docket order dated 27.09.2024 passed by the Trial Court and, it was held that possession was not handed over to the vendees under the agreement of sale and it does not require any reglstration to be marked as evidence.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.l _ plaintiff relied upon the following judgments, wherein, it was held as under: In R. Venkatram Reddy v. Jetmoni Gouramma , 1C.R.e. No. I 756 of 20 l0), it was held that: "8 [ have gone rhrough the plaint averments. The respondent_ plainrifl' pleaded in the plaint that defendants handed over possession firr survey and demarcation. Therefore, it can be construcd thar possession is not absolute ard it is only for limited purpose. I.he possession mentioned in Explanation_ I must bc eff'ective. actual and the one recogrized in law. Unless the part_,- under the agreement has the benefit of possession of the propcny. rvithout any dispute, or challenge, from a party to (hc agrecment. he cannot be mulcted with the Iiability to pay the stamp dut;-'. as though it is a sare deed, vide decision of this Court in Chervtla Srinivos v. Moola Sujatha(2d stryra). The rssuc involved in this rwision is squarely covered by the r l:y eL r s:.1 1 I n 5 judgment ol' this Court in S. Vijayalakshmi v' Boyapali Shonthamma (4 supra), wherein it has been held t rat' mere placing of land in the hands of purchaser under the rLgreement for dividing it into plots and to lay roads does not constitute handing over possession of the land and therefore, it 'loes not require stamp dutY as sale deed." In S. Vijayalakshmi v. Boyapali Santhamma 21C'R e' No'1654 of 2002),it was held that: *8. The question that arises ftlr considcration is u hether the possession was handed over under thc agreement of sale The lower court has only presumed that thc plainriff u'a; cermitted to lay the roads and divide the land into plots and it cresumed possession was also given. But it is to bc nott;d that the possession is given only for pcrlirrming the suncv functions and ultimately title is with the plaintitl' In such a s ttration' the possession has to be delinked i[ it is mcant br specific purpose. In the judgment relcrred to by thc lcarnecl counsel for the respondent (supra 1) it is clearl;- statcd that thc vcndee was given absolute rights to se[[ the plots to $ holnsocvcr he wants and vendor agreed to executc sale decds in favour of those persons. Such a power is not vested *ith thc pla ntilf herein' Mere placing of the land in the hands ol'the pla ntiff lor the purPose of dividing it into plots and to la1 roads would not constitute handing over thc absolute posscssiott ol land in question." ' 2oo2 (5) ALT 406 (s.8.) 6 In Pinnamareddy Venkata Subba Safyanarayana W.G. ,, it was held that: Rayudu v Thoomu "r2' Further an unregistered document may be received as evidence in a suit for specific Performance and the admissibility or othenvise the time or hearing .r;:'HTilIjiff"l"1n: petitioners contention that document has to be treated as bond is concerned, ,n.".'n" the agreement of sale ttre suit schedule property is agreed be transferred upon payment of barancc sale considcration -to nd when the document mentions transfer of rights between parties' the same cannot be termed as bond, as such, th, ere are no merits in the revision petition." In Nellore Sujanamma v. Desireddy Somasekhar Reddy a, it was held that: "39. O[ course. plcadings of the parties, are not relevant and the recitals in the documr u'on" are to be considered. However, one shourd ,n,-ntt lorget the other principles qza construction of docurncnt. considering the rccihls in the document. the entire ,while should be read' one should keep in ,nina on"tn.document o"t'u"o of possession is to do certain acts or actuar u",,,t '"o' If the delivery is to do particurar acr and stifl ,n" vendor rehined rights over the 3 AIROntine 2025 Ap t91 2023 (4) ALT 384 (AP) h' ,1 a 7 property, it cannot be termed as actual delivery of Jrroperty, which aftracts the meaning of conveyance. In such a case the document is not liable for stamp duty as per Explarration-l of Article 47-A of Schedule I-A of the Act. 40. If a document is presented before any autrority the authority should consider the aspect of delivery ol' tossession as to whether it is actual delivery or delivery lor the purpose of development activity?

41. The case on hand, as dlscussed supra. prcp,jrty was divided into plots and some sale deeds were alreadl L'xccuted. In respect of those plots proper stamp duty was paid to the Government they were registered. Thus, out ofthc otal extent mentioned in the document, part of property (d vided into plots) stamp duty was paid to the govemntt nt. U' the agreement of sale is to be levied with stamp dutl .rr:ating the same as sale deed for the purpose of stamp dutl . double the stamp duty and registration charges necd to bc plid. Parties need to pay stamp duty and penalty evcn to thc p ots already sold. Collection of stamp duty on agreement ol' sr.lt: docs not arise, once sale deed was executed pusuant to tll( tturee ment tbr part of the land. 42. Explanation-I of Article 47-A of Schedule I-i' .rl-thc Act reads thus: "Explanation I: - An agreement to sell follotr r:d h1' or evidencing delivery ol possession ol thc property agreed to be sold shall be ohargeabl( its a "sale'' under this article. i' L i l i 8 n Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed, in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in clause (B) of Article 6, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreernent of sale shall be adjusted rowards rhe rotal duty leviable on the sale deed."

43. Proviso to Explanation-l would make it clear that subsequent sale deed executed pursuant to agreement of sale or in pursuance of an agreemcnt re lerred to in clause @) of Article 6, the stamp duty. if any. already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale shalI be adjustcd towards the total duty leviable on the sale decd. Ilowever, proviso to the ExplanationJ does not apply to thc facts of the case.

44. Since this court is ol'rhe considcred opinion that actual delivery of possession under rhc agreement of sale dated 22.01.2011 is not delivcrcd. and the delivery is only for the purpose of division ol' propcrty into plots and actual possession was retained h1 the vcndors, the order under revision does not call tor anv iuterference. There is no illegality in the impugned ordcr passed by the Court below warranting interference ol this Coun under Articl€ 227 of the Constitution of India. 'l'herc are no merils in this revision and the same is liable to bc dismisscd,"

9. .The suit in O.S. No.tl of 2021 was filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreemenr of sale dated 17.01.2018. E 9 When the plaintiff - respondent No.l filed chief examination affidavit and sought to mark agreement of sale dated 17.01.2018, defendant Nos.l to 5 - petitioners raised objection to nrark the said agreement contending that it requires registration. I he trial Court passed docket order dated 27.09.2024 by recording that. a perusal ol the contents of agreement of sale dated 17.0 I .20 I 8 clt:arly show that saleable rights were reserved by the vendor only. Tha- after receipt of Rs.50,00,000/- from the vendee, the vendt e was given authorization to divide the lands into plots and alier receiving Rs. I,80,00,000/- (Rupees one crore eighty lakhs onl/) towards flrst installment and Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees one crorr twenty lakhs only) towards second installment, the vendor will ex r(:ute registered sale deed in favour of the person of choice of the ven,lt'e.

10. This Court has perused the contents of the a6'.rcement of sale dated I 7.01 .201 8 which reveal that after receiving rtcLvance amount of Rs.50,00,000/-, the vendee is entitled to enter uFon the land and \ convert it into plots. That after Payment of balanc e consideration, sale deed will be registered by the vendor in favour of the notninees olthe vendees. It is clear from the above contents tnitt authorization 10 o' was given to the vendees to enter upon the land and convert it into plots but actual possession was not delivered. Thus, the principle of law laid down in the aforesaid decision is applicable to the facts of the present case. The Trial Court after proper scrutiny of agreement of sale datd 17.01.2018, recorded a finding that document is without possession and it does not require any sramp duty or penalty, as it was engrossed on the Non-Judicial stamp paper of worth Rs.300/-. ll. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not see any valid ground to interfere with the order of the Trial Court in o.s. No. I I of 2021 dated 09.06.2025.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the civil revision petition stand closed. SD/- T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER / ,/TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Suryapet. 2. One CC to Sri Shaik Madar, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Janardhan Reddy Kotha. Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \q- I I I I I I I I i I I l i I i I I I I I I I -l.p== HIGH COURT DATED: 0'110812025 ORDER CRP.No.2067 ot 2025 DISMISSING OF THE CRP fcof\ f,w ( ^ J() ]. (,pr trItE S lal 12 liou ry; D a * Jr \ ParcgEo a