Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On hearing both sides, the trial Court having held that as per the order of this Court in CRP 4269 of 1994, the suit agreement attracts computation of the stamp duty under Section 47(A) of the Stamp Act but not under Article 6 of Schedule 1(a) and the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer for collection of stamp duty and penalty of Rs.55/-, is not final, but that does not mean that it has shut the liberty of the plaintiff-respondent to get his suit document to the Revenue Divisional Officer, allowed the petition directing the agreement of sale dated 20-4-1991 to be referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer for impounding under Sections 38 (2) and 40 of Stamp Act by following the order of this Court in CRP 4269 of 1994. Having aggrieved by the same, the present CRP is preferred by the defendant-petitioner.

5. Heard Mr. P. Yadagirirao, the learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Mr. K. Somakonda Reddy, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

6. The learned Counsel for the defendant -petitioner would contend that the impounding of the duty and penalty under Section 40(1)(b) of Stamp Act by the Revenue Divisional Officer, was not correct. Since the agreement of sale in question coupled with delivery of possession, the stamp duty payable thereon, shall be equivalent to that of a sale deed under Article 47A of the Indian Stamp Act and in pursuance of which, the Court Fee Examiner issued a check slip imposing stamp duty and penalty at Rs.20,460/-. He would further contend that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not issued any certificate as required under the provisions of Section 40(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, and, as such, it does not attain its finality and in the circumstances, the check slip issued by the Examiner of Court Fee, is correct and that the CRP 4269 of 1994 filed by the plaintiff-respondent challenging the check slip issued by the Court Fee Examiner, was dismissed by this Court, and, as such, the petition to send the document in question once again to the Revenue Authorities, is not maintainable. Therefore, the trial Court is not justified in allowing the petition to send the document to the RDO. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of this Court reported in Shaik Davood Saheb v. Y. Rama Murthy, 1992 (1) APLJ 332, wherein it is held thus:

14. In a similar situation, the similar issue involved in this CRP has been well considered in the judgments of this Court. In N. Jagannadham v. Mangamma, 1997 (2) ALD 549, wherein it is held thus:

"Stamp Act, 1899-Sections 38 and 40-Documents found insufficiently stamped sought to be let in evidence-If the party requires the documents to be sent to Collector by Court, it has no option but to send them-Court cannot compel the party to pay deficit stamp duty and penalty and have them admitted in evidence"

16. In Indurupalli Ramanaiah v. Somisetti Radhakrishnaiah, 1979 (1) APLJ 215, it is held thus:

"Indian Stamp Act-Sections 33, 35, 38, 40 and 42 -Scope and effect-When the party requests the impounding Court to send the document which is not duly stamped, but is intended to be admitted in evidence, to the Collector under Section 38 (2), the Court cannot refuse to send it to the Collector."

17. In B.V.R. Reddy v. Adorn Cooperative Central Stores Limited, , this Court held thus:

"if the party filing the document wants it to be admitted in evidence, then only the Court shall collect the duty and penalty and then admit it in evidence. But if the party instead of requiring the document to be admitted in evidence merely wants the Court to send it to the Collector to be dealt with under Section 40 the Court has no option but send it to the Collector as provided in Section 38(2). The Court cannot compel the party to pay duty and penalty and have it admitted in evidence."