Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1350 of 2012 23-06-2015 Madala Jyothi & another.... PETITIONERS ` Karanam Tirupalaiah and others....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. K.S.Gopala Krishnan Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Ch.C.Krishna Reddy ?. Cases referred AIR2010Supreme Court 1654 2 2001 (5) ALT130(F.B) HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1350 of 2012 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur in O.S.No.230 of 2010 dated 09.02.2012 wherein the Court below declared the suit settlement agreement dated 10.06.1997 as inadmissible in evidence for want of Stamp Duty and Registration.2. The case of revision petitioners is that the first respondent, who is the owner of the suit property and father of first petitioner executed an agreement for settlement dated 10.06.1997 in favour of the first petitioner and delivered possession of the suit property and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)ALT567
ORDER1. Heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners and Sri Ch. Dhananjaya, the learned Counsel representing the first respondent.2. This Court while admitting the Civil Revision Petition on 28.05.2008, granted interim stay as prayed for in C.R.P.M.P. No. 2810 of 2008. The first respondent in the Civil Revision Petition filed C.R.P.M.P. No. 4733 of 2008 to vacate the interim stay granted in C.R.P.M.P. No. 2810 of 2008 dated 28.05.2008 aforesaid. When the vacate stay application is taken up for hearing the learned Counsel on record made a request for disposal of the Civil Revision Petition itself and hence, this Court had taken up the Civil Revision Petition for final hearing and the same is being disposed of.3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed against an order, dated 03.05.2008 made in O.S. No. 158 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. At the time of marking document, dated 01.10.1980, an objection was taken on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD597; 2005(3)ALT1
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 22-7-2002, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kurnool, rejecting the request of the petitioners herein to admit the alleged agreement, dated 19-2-1997, in evidence.3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit.4. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit.5. The only question that falls for consideration in this civil revision petition is as to whether a document, which is the very basis of the filing of the suit, is a deed of partition or an agreement to partition and what is the effect of non-registration and insufficient stamp duty of such document?6. The suit is filed for specific performance of alleged agreement of partition deed, dated 19-12-1997, directing the defendants to execute a registered partition deed along with the plaintiffs, conveying the plaint schedule prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1973AP300
ORDER1. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff-petitioner given rise to a short question of law relating to the scope and application on Section 2(15) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.2. The material admitted facts which lie in a short compass leading upto this revision may briefly stated. The petitioner sued for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties on the ground that he is the illegitimate son of late Kuncham Chidambaram, the paternal grandfather of the first defendant, in the Court of the District Judge, Visakapatnam, in the year 1971. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were minors represented by their guardian and natural father the first defendant. The first defendant's father late Krishnamurthy gifted some property on 11-11-1957 under a registered gift deed to the plaintiff. That apart, about three tolas of gold, Rs. 1,800 /- cash and two bulls worth about Rs. 300 /- were said to have been given by late Kris...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ALD116; 2006(3)ALT486
ORDERP.S. Narayana, J.1. This Court ordered notice before admission on 10-11-2005. The first respondent, Central Bank of India, Hanamkonda Branch, the plaintiff in the suit, the only contesting respondent had been served. None respondents R.I.2. G. Swaroopa Rani, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 27 of 2003, on the file of III-Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal had raised an objection for the marking of three documents as promissory notes dated 6-8-1996, 3-5-1999 and 30-3-2000. The objections raised were two fold that these documents are not stamped as under provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience). Yet another objection is that they are not properly cancelled under Section 12(3) of the Act. The learned Judge, in the light of the decision of this Court in Gurana Asirinaidu v. Lenka Suryanarayana : 2005(1)ALD713 , came to the conclusion that the objections raised by the revis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005AP322; 2005(3)ALD316; 2005(3)ALT343
ORDERD.S.R. Varma, J.1. Heard both sides.2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 16-8-2004, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, allowing the application in IA No. 101 of 2003 in RCC No. 23 of 2002, filed under Sections 33 and 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for brevity 'the Stamp Act') seeking to send an unregistered document to the competent authority for the purpose of impounding and levying stamp duty and penalty.3. The petitioner filed RCC No. 23 of 2002 seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises in question.4. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner and the respondent will be referred to as 'the landlord' and 'the tenant' respectively.5. The tenant along with the counter filed the document under controversy, which is said to be a memorandum of partition deed. But, the said document admittedly, is an unregistered and xerox copy of the original document. The original document has not been filed before the Court below.6. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(2)ALD715
ORDERS. Ananda Reddy, J.1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Guntur dated 13th March, 2001 in OS No. 30 of 1998 in determining the disputed document as an acknowledgment of debt and therefore the same is not liable to any stamp duty and accordingly overruled the objections of the plaintiff.2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of certain amount based on vouchers said to have been executed by the defendant, not only in the name of the plaintiff but also in the name of some other persons. In the said suit, the defendant's case is that in respect of various vouchers, cheques were issued for repayment and in the process of encashment of the blank cheques issued, the amount drawn by the plaintiff in the present suit and the other connected suits have exceeded the amount and therefore the plaintiff executed a letter. The plaintiff in the other suit T. Nayarana Rao executed a document as per the settlement between the parties...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2006AP392; 2006(5)ALD359
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S, No. 20 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. The suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 25-7-1998, in respect of suit schedule land admeasuring Acs.33.33 guntas in various survey numbers situated at Mangalpally Village of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal in Ranga Reddy District.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant entered into agreement initially for an extent of Acs. 150.00 of land, who later executed sale deeds in respect of Acs. 116.06 guntas in favour of the nominees of the plaintiff but failed to execute the sale deeds in respect of balance area of Acs.33.33 guntas. The defendant opposed the suit inter alia raising objection that the agreement of sale, which is engrafted on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/- cannot be looked into as per the provisions of A.P. Act 21 of 1995. The defendant contended that when the immovable property...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD497
ORDERL. Narasimha Reddy, J.1. The petitioner and Ms family members executed a partition deed, dated 7.2.2004, dividing certain items of properties among themselves. The document was presented before the first respondent for registration. Stamp duty of Rs. 57,030/-, under Article 40 of Schedule I-A to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act'), was paid on the document. The first respondent treated the document, as the one falling under Article 49-A(a) of the Schedule l-A to the Act, and admitted it for registration. The District Registrar of Assurances, Kakinada, East Godavari District, second respondent herein issued a show-cause notice, dated 15.5.2004, to the petitioner, stating that the document presented by them has been impounded by the first respondent and according to him, the stamp duty payable on the document is Rs. 6,95,100/-. The petitioner and other parties to the document were required to show-cause, as to why the said amount shall not be collected from them.2. On r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1996(1)ALD(Cri)530; 1996(1)ALT917
K.M. Agarwal, J. 1. Neither the order of reference made by the learned single Judge, nor that made by the Division Bench gives any definite indication as to the specific question or questions referred to the Full Bench. The learned single Judge felt that:'There is a conflict in the Divisional Bench decisions of this Court in Ramakistaiah v. Yellappa : AIR1959AP653 and P. Ramana Reddy v. K. Rukminamma (1968 (1) An. W.R. 221) with regard to applicability of Explanation (i) to Section 13(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in deciding whether a document is a promissory note within the definition of Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act'. The Divisional Bench also felt that there was a divergence of opinion as to the nature of the suit document, which required to be settled at rest by a Full Bench in view of its general importance. To quote the words of the Division Bench: 'As stated supra, there are conflicting views expressed in the two earlier judgments i.e., Ramakistiah's ...
Tag this Judgment!