IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2464 OF 2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed being aggrieved by the Order, Dt. 04.09.2024, passed in O.S No.287 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District. Between: 1. Karumuri Srinivas, S/o. Karumuri Venkateswarlu, Aged about 55 years, residing at Door No. 17-8-8, Subbaraya Nagar, Ponnur Town, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. 2. Kothamasu Rama Krishna, S/o. Late Krishna Rao, aged about 67 years, residing at Door No. 2-1-18, Beside police station, G.B.C. Ponnur Town, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. Road, 3. Velchuri Veerabhadra Rao, S/o. Velchuri Subbarao, years, residing at Door No. 1-10-5/1, Bhavana Nagar Colony Town, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. 4. . Chaganti Venkateswarlu, (Died). 5. Nannapaneni Subhashini, W/o. Nannapaneni Subbarao years, residing at Door No. 1-10-5, Bhava Nagar Coiony, Ponnur Town, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. aged about 52 Ponnur aged about 56 ...Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1. Bhimavarapu Nagi Reddy, S/o. Venkatareddy, aged about 60 years, residing at Flat No. 20, Venkat Ramana Estates, Ring Road, Guntur City, Guntur District. '2. Vuyyuru Brahma Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, aged about 62 . years, residing at House No. 12/1, Arundelpet, Guntur City, Guntur • District. 3. Polepalli Lakshmi Subbaratnam, W/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 55 years, residing at House No. 9-10-52, Sanakayala Factory Road, Kothapeta, Guntur City, Guntur District. 4. Polepalli Rama Krishna, S/o. Satyanarayana, aged about 39 residing at Door No. 9-10-52, Sanakayala Factory Road, Kothapeta Guntur City, Guntur District. (Notices to R3 and R4 are not and R2 as G.P.As.) years. necessary as they are represented by R1 ...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further O.S.No.287 of 2017 proceedings in on the file of the Court of the PrI. District Judge, Guntur, Guntur District, pending disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010459652024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0M0 [3206] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2464/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Karumuri Srinivas and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) Bhimavarapu Nagi Reddy and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SIVA RAMA KRISHNA KOLLURU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA 2. The Court made the following Order: The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, had entered into an agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney (GPA), dated 13.11.2006 with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for the purchase of the suit-schedule property. ■\ „ 2 This agreement of Sale cum GPA was registered under Document No.9149 of 2006. 2. Based on this document, respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered into an agreement of sale on the same day with the petitioners herein. The petitioners, subsequently filed O.S.No.287 of 2017 before the learned Principal District Judge, Guntur, for specific performance of the said agreement. During the Trial, the agreement of sale, dated 13.11.2006 was sought to be marked as an exhibit. At that stage, respondents Nos.1 and 2 objected, claiming that the document was not properly stamped and could not be admitted as an evidence without the payment of penalty and appropriate stamp duty. 3. The case of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was that the document falls within the ambit of Explanation-1 to Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is contended that, on account of this fact, the stamp duty that is payable on the agreement of sale, dated 13.11.2006 should be the same as the duty for a sale deed. In the light of the deficit stamp duty, they argued that the document could not be admitted without the payment of the penalty prescribed under the Stamp Act. 3 The Trial Court, accepted this argument and held that, the agreement of sale, dated 13.11.2006, required stamp duty as if it were a sale deed and further, that the penalty should be paid. Aggrieved by this finding in the order, dated 04.09.2024, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, Explanation-l apply to an agreement of sale only where the agreement is followed by the handing over of possession or evidence prior to the handing over of The learned counsel took this Court through the agreement 5. possession, of sale as well as the specific recitals in the agreement of sale, which was relied upon by the Trial Court, and contends that, none of these recitals make out a case of transfer of possession. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the recitals in the agreement of sale, stipulating that, it would be open to the petitioners to enter the land and develop it by dividing the same into plots for sale to third parties are sufficient to conclude that possession has been transferred. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nellore Sujanamma vs. Desireddy Somasekhar Reddy ^ , where, after reviewing extensive 6. ^ 2023 (4) ALT 384 (AP) *' 4 judgments on this subject, the Court held that, limited transfer of possession under an agreement of sale did not amount to a transfer of possession that would attract the provisions of Explanation-! to Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Stamp Act. 7. The principle that can be adduced from the review of various judgments is that, while an agreement of sale falling under Explanation-! to Article 47-A of Schedule l-A of the Stamp Act requires payment of stamp duty as if it were a sale deed, whether a document attracts such stamp duty depends on a case-by-case factual interpretation. The provisions of Explanation-I to Article 47-A are extracted below: 8. ‘‘Explanation-1:- An agreement to sell followed by or evidencing delivery of possession of the property agreed to be sold shall be chargeable as a “Sale” under this Article: Provided that, where subsequently a sale deed is executed in pursuance of an agreement of sale as aforesaid or in pursuance of an agreement referred to in Clause (b) of Article, the stamp duty, if any, already paid or recovered on the agreement of sale the adjusted towards the total duty leviable on the sale deed”. 9. In the present case, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that, the recital in the agreement of sale permitting the petitioners 5 to enter the land for the purpose of developing the land by dividing the same into plots for sale, as well as the further recital that respondent Nos.1 and 2 would execute necessary documents of sale upon payment of the full sale consideration, either in favor of the petitioners or their nominees, by alienating the land on an acre-wise basis or as plots, would suggest that possession has been handed over. The judgments reviewed by the learned Single Judge in the 10. aforementioned case held that, even when possession has been handed over, the intention behind the handing over of possession must be considered. However, this issue does not arise in the present case. In the opinion of this Court, the recital that the petitioners are 11. permitted to enter the land to undertake development activities can only be Such a recital cannot be interpreted as permission to enter the land. construed as handing over of possession. This view is fortified by the pleadings in the written statement filed by the respondents before the Trial / Court. In the written statement, the respondents stated that, the agreement of sale executed between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 was merely an agreement of sale without possession. 6 • ^ In such circumstances, the question of respondent Nos.1 and 2 12. handing over possession, which they did not have in the first place, does not arise. 13. For all the above reasons, the recitals in the documents do not indicate a transfer of possession. As such, Explanation-I does not apply and the Stamp duty payable on the document should be that of an agreement of sale only. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in these terms and the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court for appropriate steps in the light of the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- B CHITTI JOSEPH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// f ^ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal. District Judge, Guntur, Guntur 2. One CC to Sri. Siva Rama Krishna Kolluru 3. One CC to Sri. Satyanarayana Nimmala 4. Three CD Copies District. Advocate [OPUC] Advocate [OPUC] MKP sree HIGH COURT DATED :07/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2464 of 2024 AND>^ 5 2 "I MAR 2025 Current Section % *3: 6®, disposing of the c.r.p. WITHOUT COSTS