Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- specific relief act, 1963 [c.a. no. 47/1963]. sections 31 & 34: [bilal nazki, v.v.s. rao & g. chandraiah, jj] [per court] cancellation of registered sale deed inherent power of registering authority - fraudulent transfer of property sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee held, it is void. true owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from court. registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render sections 31 and 34 of specific relief act, otiose. -- transfer of property act,1882[c.a. no. 4/1882]......

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orderk.b. siddappa, j.1. this revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip no. 19/93 in o.s.no. 34/92.2. the plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing s.no. 756 to an extent of acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of pentlavelli village of kollapur mandal. the plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. after filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to revenue divisional officer, gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. the revenue divisional officer, gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. the court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

K.B. Siddappa, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '441384',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
			'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
			'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '441384',
		(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs Legisetty Ramaseethamma - Citation 441384 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '441384',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51696/indian-stamp-act-1899-complete-act">Indian Stamp Act, 1899</a> - Sections 40(1) and 40(2); Indian Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1986 - Articles 20 and 47A',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Revision Petition No. 4269 of 1994',
		'appellant' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Telugu Solipuram Narasimha Vs. Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'casenote' => ' - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 [C.A. No. 47/1963]. Sections 31 & 34: [Bilal Nazki, V.V.S. Rao & G. Chandraiah, JJ] [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. -- TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,1882[C.A. No. 4/1882]. Sections 53 & 126: [Per Court] Cancellation of registered sale deed  Inherent power of registering authority -  Fraudulent transfer of property  Sale taking place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee Held, It is void. True owner can nullify the sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court. Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered. Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Sections 31 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'K. Somakonda Reddy and ;S. Srinivasa Bhatt, Advs.',
		'counseldef' => 'P. Yadagiri Rao, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1996-07-25',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'K.B. Siddappa, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.</p><p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.</p><p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act</p><p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.</p><p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.</p><p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.</p><p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.</p><p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.</p><p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-</p><p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'</p><p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.</p><p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.</p><p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1996(3)ALT550',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Legisetty Ramaseethamma',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '441384',
	(int) 1 => 'telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/441384/telugu-solipuram-narasimha-vs-legisetty-ramaseethamma'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>K.B. Siddappa, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This revision is filed against the order passed on a check slip No. 19/93 in O.S.No. 34/92.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale in respect of land bearing S.No. 756 to an extent of Acs. 3-24 guntas situated with in the limits of Pentlavelli village of Kollapur Mandal. The plaintiff had also filed the original of agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 along with the plaint. After filing the suit the plaintiff filed a petition to send the document to Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal for imposition of duty and penalty. The Revenue Divisional officer, Gadwal treated the document as an agreement and collected the stamp duty and penalty. The court-fee examiner during inspection after going through the document found some deficiency in collection of stamp duty and penalty. He pointed out in the check slip that the agreement of sale is followed by delivery of possession. Therefore/ as per the amended Act 17/1986 the agreement of sale requires stamp duty payable under the said Act. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer, the civil Court cannot entertain the objection raised by the Court Fee examiner of the High Court. The decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer is final under the provisions of Stamp Act',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. This was considered by the lower court and ultimately over-ruled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. He held that the said document is liable for stamp duty and penalty and consequently upheld the check slip issued by the court -fee examiner of the High Court.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Aggrieved by the said order the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when once the document is impounded by the Revenue Divisional officer and stamp duty and penalty were collected, the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer becomes final and it cannot be gone into by the Sub-Court Consequently, the check slip issued was wrong.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. in support of his contention he relied upon a judgment Y. Kripavatamma and Ors. v. Nnrasimha Raddy, 1969 ILR 593. In this case it was held that the certificate issued under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is conclusive by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 40.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. Evidently, the facts of the case on hand are different. No certificate was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in the present case Under Section 40(1)(a). The Revenue Divisional Officer found that the agreement of sale was not properly stamped. He treated it as an agreement (erroneously). But even as an agreement this is not properly stamped by virtue of Article 6 of Schedule I-A. Therefore, the facts fall Under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act because the Revenue Divisional Officer himself was of the opinion that the instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped. Therefore, this case has no bearing to the facts of the present case.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of our High Court in Y. Peda Venkayya v. R.D.O., Guntur and Anr., : AIR1981AP274 . He strongly relied upon the observations of Jeeven Reddy. J, as he then was, in para-8 of the judgment. The learned Judge held in para-8 as follows:-',
	(int) 9 => '<p>'8. Ordinarily, one would think that it would not be proper or desirable to allow the Collector to go into the nature of the document, or into the amount of duty and penalty payable, once the very same matter has been adjudicated by the Court. But, in view of the specific language of Sub-section(1) of Section 40, it is not possible to hold that the decision of the Court is conclusive and binding upon the Collector where the document is sent to him Under Section 38(2). Probably, the reason behind Sub-section (1) of Section 40 is that, since the matter pertains to the revenue of the State, it is the Collector who must have the final say where the original document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38.'',
	(int) 10 => '<p>This case also is distinguishable on facts. It was held that it is the Collector who must have a final say where the registered document is sent to him under Sub-section (2) of Section 38. In this case there is no specific reference to the scope of Section 40(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, this observation cannot be taken as final as it is not expressed after considering the scope of clause (b) Sub-section (1) of Section 40, vis-a-vis Sub-section (2) of section 40 of the Act.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>9. In this case, there is no dispute that the agreement of sale is dated 20-4-1991, for a sale consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is the definite case of the plaintiff and also as per the recitals in the agreement of sale, that possession was also delivered, along with execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, on the facts of this case, no finality can be attached to the decision of the Revenue Divisional officer as to the stamp duty payable on the agreement of sale. The authority, in this case, the Court Fee Examiner, can certainly point out the defect in the order of the revenue Divisional Officer, as he did not issue certificate Under Section 40(1)(a) and he considered the case Under Section 40(1)(b). This document squarely falls within the scope of Article 20 of Schedule l-A of the Act. In such a case, the proper stamp duty is on the 'ad valorem' stamp required for conveyance of sale under Article 47A. Further, Article 47-A (see explanation) makes it clear that an agreement of sale followed by delivery of possession shall be chargeable as sale under this Article. Therefore, this agreement of sale is chargeable under the Stamp Act, as indicated above. In view of the above discussion, the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner cannot be challenged. There is no infirmity in the order of the lower Court.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>10. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed and in the circumstances without costs.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109