Bamandlapally Prabhakar vs Kandikattu Sreekanth

J. Sreenivas Rao, J

This revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.226 of 2025 in O.S.No.85 of 2020, where-under the application filed by the petitioners/defendants to send the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 for impounding and to direct the respondent/plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar, was dismissed.

Heard Mr. V. Umapathi Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. The notice in respect of the respondent/plaintiff is dispensed with, as the civil revision petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

The revision petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2020. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 before the Court below.

Brief facts of the case:

4.1. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 before the District Judge, Medak District, against the defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 and for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from alienating the suit schedule property in any manner till the disposal of the suit and sought other consequential reliefs.

4.2. The above said suit was posted for further examination of the plaintiff/PW.1. During the course of his examination, when the plaintiff is marking the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 as an exhibit, the counsel for the defendants had raised an objection stating that the said document was insufficiently stamped, and, hence, the same is not admissible in evidence and the document is liable to be impounded. The Court below after verifying the document directed the plaintiff to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.100/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid the stamp duty of Rs.100/- and penalty of Rs.1,000/-, i.e., total amount is Rs.1,100/-, by way of challan on 20.01.2025.

4.3. Subsequently, the defendants have filed an application i.e., I.A.No.226 of 2025 under Section 38(2) of the Stamp Act read with 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to send the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 to the District Registrar, Sangareddy, for impounding, and to direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar.

4.4. The Court below after hearing both the parties dismissed the said application, by its order dated 18.06.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants field the present civil revision petition.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants:

5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 is insufficiently stamped. Hence, the said document is inadmissible in evidence. Unless and until the plaintiff pays the deficit stamp duty and penalty, as per the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Act’) the agreement of sale cannot be marked as an exhibit. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, the agreement of sale requires registration. If the said document is not registered, the same cannot be marked as an exhibit.

5.2. He further submitted that as per the G.O.Ms.No.59 Revenue (Registration) Department, dated 20.07.2021, issued by the Government of Telangana, the District Registrar has to decide the rates of the stamp duty payable on certain instruments under various Articles of Schedule I-A of the Act, and as per Article 6(B) of the Schedule IA of the Act, the stamp duty payable on sale agreements without possession is chargeable of 0.5%. Hence, the document relied upon by the plaintiff has to be sent to the District Registrar, Sanga Reddy, for impounding. He further submitted that the Court below, without properly considering the contentions raised by the defendants, erroneously dismissed the application.

5.3. He further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the total consideration of the schedule property is Rs.1.24 lakhs (Rupees one crore twenty four lakhs only) and the plaintiff had paid only a meager amount of Rs.25 lakhs as advance and the plaintiff had agreed to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.99 lakhs within a period of 45 days i.e., at the time of registration, from the date of agreement of sale i.e., 28.02.2020. However, the plaintiff did not come forward to pay the balance sale consideration and not performed his part of contract, on the other hand, filed the suit in October, 2020. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under law and the same is barred by limitation.

5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:

Seetharama Shetty v. Monappa Shetty 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2320; and

Alagammal and others v. Ganesan and another (2024) 3 SCC 232.

Analysis:

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that the plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.85 of 2020 against the defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 and for grant of perpetual injunction and other consequential reliefs. When the suit is posted for further chief examination of the plaintiff/PW.1 and marking the agreement of sale as an exhibit, the defendants raised an objection that the agreement of sale was insufficiently stamped. Hence, the same is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be marked as an exhibit.

The record further reveals that the Court below, after duly verifying the recitals of the agreement of sale found that the document is executed on a Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper and further observed that the possession of the suit schedule property was not delivered to the plaintiff, as such, the said document was treated as agreement and as per Article 6(C) of Schedule IA of the Act, initially it was prescribed stamp duty as Rs.100/-, but in view of G.O.Ms.No.120 Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 23.07.2015, the stamp duty on such document i.e., agreement of sale, was enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-. Taking into consideration the same, the Court below directed the plaintiff to pay deficit stamp duty of Rs.100/- and ten times of penalty, which comes to Rs.1,000/-. The record further reveals that pursuant to the said order, the plaintiff paid deficit stamp duty and penalty, totaling Rs.1,100/-, by way of challan on 20.01.2025 and the above said document was impounded.

Thereafter, the defendants filed application i.e, I.A.No.226 of 2025 invoking the provisions under Section 38(2) of the Act to send the agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020 to the District Registrar, Sanga Reddy, for impounding and to direct the plaintiff to pay the requisite stamp duty before the District Registrar.

The main contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that the suit which was filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation on the ground that the plaintiff has not paid the balance sale consideration within 45 days and failed to perform his part of contract and the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement of sale are binding and the time is essence of the contract, however, the plaintiff filed suit in October 2020 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.02.2020, is concerned, these aspects cannot be adjudicated in the present civil revision petition, especially the revision arises against the impugned order passed by the Court below in refusing to send the document under Section 38(2) of the Act, especially the defendants have not raised the above said ground in I.A.No.226 of 2025. It is trite law that whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation or not, the same is disputed question of fact and law and the same has to be adjudicated during the course of trial.

The other contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, if the value of the immovable property is Rs.100/- or upwards, the document is compulsorily required registration and the value of the property mentioned in the document is Rs.1.24 lakhs, hence, the document is not admissible into evidence on the ground of non-registration, are not tenable under law on the ground that the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908, specifically envisages that in a suit for specific performance of contract, unregistered agreement of sale can be received into evidence when possession is not delivered pursuant to the agreement of sale to the agreement holder.

The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Seetharama Shetty supra is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that in the above said case, the plaintiff filed suit for grant of perpetual injunction basing upon the agreement of sale and the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the trial Court to send the agreement of sale dated 29.06.1999 to the District Registrar to determine the deficit stamp duty and penalty. In the case on hand, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and the instrument is only an agreement of sale and stamp duty is to be paid under Article 6(c) of the Schedule 1A of the Act, initially it was prescribed as Rs.100/-and the stamp duty is enhanced from Rs.100/- to Rs.200/- as per G.O.Ms.no.20 Revenue (Registration-I) Department, dated 23.07.2015. Pursuant to the same, the Court below collected deficit stamp duty and ten times penalty.

The other judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners/defendants in Alagammal supra, is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that the plaintiff therein filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, damages and recovery of money with interest and the said suit was dismissed by the Munsif, District Court, Dindigul, vide its judgment and decree dated 10.09.2000 on the ground that the plaintiff has not made any attempt to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time, as the time is essence of contract, and also basing on his conduct. Against the same, the plaintiff filed appeal before the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed appeal before the High Court at Madras and the same was dismissed on 28.04.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants filed S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court as well as the lower appellate Court and confirmed the order of the Munsif, District Court, Dindigul.

In the case on hand, the suit is still pending, whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the stipulated time pursuant to the agreement of sale, whether the time is essence of contract and whether the plaintiff is entitled for grant of specific performance of contract of sale as well as delivery of possession, these aspects are disputed questions of facts and law and the same have to be adjudicated in the main suit after full-fledged trial, but not in the present revision, especially, the petitioner has not raised the above pleas in I.A.No.226 of 2025 before the Court below.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Court below, to exercise the supervisory powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.