Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1999(2)ALD314; 1999(1)ALT815
ORDER1. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff. He had instituted the suit against the defendants i.e., the respondents herein, in OS No.301 of 1989 which is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi. The said suit was filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 24-4-1989 and also to put the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property.2. On completion of formalities, the evidence commenced. The plaintiff produced the document i.e., agreement of sale, which was exhibited in the evidence. After few days, the plaintiff filed an application i.e., IA No.1332 of 1997 under Section 38 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 with a prayer to send an agreement of sale to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi for levying and collecting stamp duty as it was inadequately stamped. The defendants-respondents herein filed their counter and resisted IA No.1332 of 1997. The learned Judge heard the matter on merits and refused to send the agreement of sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(3)ALT976
Lingaraja Rath, J.1. The appellant who came before this Court in W.P.No. 718 of 1991 seeking relief of direction to release the original registered sale deed bearing receipt No. 275 (P. 1253/90) dated 14-9-1990 executed in his favour having been rejected has preferred this appeal.2. The appellant purchased the property in question through the executed deed for consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- but at the time of the registration the Sub-Registrar, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, respondent herein (having) entertained the opinion of the property to be of much higher value initiated proceedings Under Section 47A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by A.P.Act 22 of 1971. In his view, the property was to have been valued at Rs. 11,41,500/- and stamp duty was paid thereon. As the stamp duty had been short-paid he referred the matter to the Collector.3. The proceeding initiated by the respondent was assailed before this Court mainly upon the ground that mere were no material before the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD136; 2006(6)ALT476
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. A short but interesting question that arises for consideration in these two writ petitions is as to whether it is competent to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) to impound improperly/inadequately stamped document under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (the Stamp Act, for brevity) and deal such important documents in accordance with Sections 38 and 40 of the Stamp Act.2. The petitioners in these two writ petitions entered into sale transactions under documents written on stamp papers worth Rs. 100/-. Such documents were executed by M/s. Southern Udyans Limited alienating certain extents of lands in Survey Nos.305 and 309 of Lingotham Village, Narkatpalli Mandal in Nalgonda District (in the first writ petition) and in Survey Nos.198, 199, 207 and 208 in Yellareddigudem Village in Narkatpalli Mandal of Nalgonda District (in the second writ petition). As the documents are improperly stamped and they cannot be received as evidence in a Court of law, the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(6)ALD736
P.S. Narayana, J.1. On 31.1.2006 the following order was made by this Court:Ground Nos. 8(a) to (e) raised substantial question of law. Admit.The said grounds read as hereunder:(1) Whether the original agreement of sale stood proved through the secondary evidence in the form of Ex.A-2 and the question of stamp duty on the original does not arise?(2) Whether the bar against receiving secondary evidence of unstamped documents extends to cases where the document is lost from the custody of the Court?(3) Whether the plaintiff can be made to suffer on account of the loss of the document, which has been sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer from the custody of the Court on the principle of actus curiae neninem gravabit?(4) Whether the defendant can raise an objection with regard to insufficiency of stamp having acquiesced in stamping the copy of the document on consent of both the Counsel?(5) Whether Ex.A-2 copy of the original document impounded can be looked into in view of the judgment r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005AP189; 2004(5)ALD653; 2004(6)ALT237
G. Bikshapathy, J. 1. The important question that arises for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition is with regard to the interpretation of Article 6(B) of Schedule-I-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by A.P. Act 21 of 1995. 2. Before we delve into the legal aspects of the case we shall refer to the facts of the case on hand.3. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit in O.S.NO. 19 of 2000 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated: 18.2.1997. The said agreement was drafted on a stamp paper of the value of Rs. 100/-. Under the said agreement, an extent of Ac.6-95 cents of agricultural land was sought to be sold to the plaintiff for a total sum of Rs. 2,43,250/-. Out of the said amount, the defendants have received a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards the advance and balance was agreed to be paid on or before 20.3.1997. Since the transaction did not come through the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007AP177; 2007(3)ALD199; 2007(5)ALT59
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-3-2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S. No. 557 of 2004 upholding the objection raised by the defendant as to stamp duty payable on the suit document dated 19-5-2003.2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 70,000/- allegedly due from the defendants/respondents herein. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the husband of the 1st defendant by name Kamalakar Rao borrowed a sum of Rs. 70,000/- from the plaintiff on 19-5-2003 and executed a document on the same day agreeing to pay the said amount on demand. It is also pleaded that the said Kamalakar Rao issued a cheque bearing No. 675910 dated 19-5-2003 for a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards collateral security. However, he evaded payment of the said amount in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and recently he died intestate leaving behind the defendants, being his wife a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961AP424
Anantanarayana Ayyar, J. 1. This is a petition to revise the order of the District Munsiff, Kollapur dated 26-3-1959 holding that the two documents which had been filed by the defendant in that suit were contracts of sale and not agreements of sale and ordering as follows: '.......Definitely they are contracts of sale which require stamp according to Article 16 of the Hyderabad Stamp Act. Sheristadar is directed to calculate the penalty and submit. Party producing them to deposit the penalty as levies by the Court. In case the party fails to deposit the penalties the documents shall be impounded and sent to the Collector for necessary action. For evidence of defendant call on 11-4-1959.' 2. Two contentions have been raised before me as follows: 1. That the two documents are not sales but agreements to sell. 2. That the learned District Munsiff erred in ordering payment of stamp duty and penalty before the stage of admission of documents in evidence was reached. 3. POINT NO. 1 : Both t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALD54; I(2008)BC145
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. Heard Mr.J yotheshwar representing Sri Laxma Reddy, the Counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, the Counsel representing respondent.2. Sri Jyotheshwar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioner - defendant would submit that the suit is based on the promissory note but however on a careful reading of the recitals of the promissory note in question, the same may have to be treated as a bond and not as a promissory note and hence, the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Warangal had totally erred in permitting the respondent - plaintiff to mark the said document in question as Ex.A.1.3. Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing respondent - plaintiff would maintain that the C.R.P. was filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. The learned Counsel also would contend that even otherwise though the payment by way of cheque was written on the promissory note it is not the case of the revision petitioner - defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(5)ALT653
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 7-3-2005 in I.A.No. 462 of 2004 in O.S.No. 9 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan.2. The defendants 1 and 3 in the suit are the Revision petitioners. The 1st respondent herein, who being a minor represented by his motherfiled the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants 1 and 3/ Revision petitioners filed the written statement contesting the suit claim. During the course of the trial, the defendants 1 and 3 sought to produce an unregistered settlement deed as evidence on their behalf. The said document was also not properly stamped. On an objection raised by the plaintiff, the Court impounded the said document and by order dated 3-12-2004 a sum of Rs. 21,510/-towards the deficit stamp duty together with penalty of Rs. 2,15,100/- was directed to be collected. Admittedly, the said order has become final since the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD278; 2008(2)ALT24
ORDERGopalakrishna Tamada, J.1. This revision is directed against the order dated 16-03-2007 passed in I.A. No. 232 of 2007 in O.S. No. 42 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, whereby the Court below permitted a xerox copy of the partition list to be adduced as a secondary evidence as provided for under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act').2. Brief facts are that petitioner herein, who is none other than the father of the respondents herein, instituted the suit, O.S. No. 42 of 2003, seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and put him in possession of his share. In the said suit, the stand of the defendants i.e., the respondents herein is that the suit schedule property was already partitioned and that during the course of partition, a list of partition was prepared by the elders on 19-12-1996 and the original was handed over to the father i.e., the petitioner herein and xerox cop...
Tag this Judgment!