APHC010526402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI Vk TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2888 OF 2024 Pstition und6r Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dt. 28*^ October 2024 in IANo.136 of 2024 in O.S.No.102 of 2019 passed by III Additional District Judge, at Tirupati. Between: R. Padma Reddy, S/o. Penchal Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 R/o. Plot No. 108, Geetanjali Apgrtment, Flat No. 203, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. years ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND K Venkateshwarlu, S/o. K.V. Narsimham, Aged about 65 years, Hindu R/o. Door No. 18-2-243/9, Abbanna Colony, Tirupati Urban Mandal Tirupati, Chittoor District. ...Respondent/Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to pass order staying all further proceedings in O.S.No.102 of 2019 pending on the file of the III Additional District Judge the Civil Revision Petition. LA NO: 2 OF 9noA Court at Tirupati pending disposal of Between: K Venkateshwarlu, S/o. K.V. Narsimham R/o. Door No. 18-2-243/9, Abbanna Tirupati, Chittoor District. . Aged about 65 years, Hindu Colony, Tirupati Urban Mandal, ...Respondent/Petitioner AND R. Padma Reddy, S/o. Penchal r R/o. Plot No. 108, Geetanjali Apartment Hyderabad. Reddy, Hindu, aged about 48 years Flat No. 203, Srinagar Colony, ■.Petitioner/Respondent in ''' stated Vacate then Vacate the Intenm stay orders dated 24-11-2023 in CRP.No. 2888 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following order: Sri Bankatlal Mandhani Sri G V L Murthy APHC010526402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3233] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2888/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER R. Padma Reddy AND ...RESPONDENT K Venkateshwarlu Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BANKATLAL MANDHANI Counsel for the Respondent: 1.G VLMURTHY The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This revision is filed against the order in I.A.No.136 of 2024 in 2. O.S.No.102 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 28.10.2024. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the petitioner in the above said I.A. Similarly, the respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the 3. respondent in the above said I.A. 2 The suit is for recovery of money of Rs.47,50,000/- basing upon the document of “Memorandum of Understanding with regard to confirmation of debt” which was marked as Ex.A-1 subject to objection. At the stage of the trial, the petitioner filed the above said I.A. under Section 151 C.P.C. before the court below seeking a direction to the respondent/ plaintiff for payment of stamp duty for Ex.A-1 under Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act and in default, the said document may be demarked. Considering the above said I.A. on merits, the trial court dismissed the same vide order dated 28.10.2024. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that, even though Ex.A-1 is styled as “Memorandum of Understanding with regard to confirmation of debt”, it is to be treated as “bond” under Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamp Act as the same was said to have been executed on Rs.lOO/- non-judicial stamp paper which was made the basis for the maintenance of the suit. The respondent opposed the said contention by filing the detailed counter to the above said I.A. and it is the case of the respondent that the recitals of Ex.A-1 in toto do not refer to the features of “bond” and as such the respondent is not liable to pay any stamp duty under Stamp Act. 5. 6. The Ex.A-1 with the heading of “Memorandum of Understanding with regard to confirmation of debt between the 1®‘ party and 2 described as under: nd party” is The 1^* party is referred as M/s New Heights Reality represented by its Managing Partner Mr. R.P.Reddy who is shown as defendant alltogether 3 nd party Mr. disputed the execution of the said document. The 2 K.Venkateswarlu is none other than the respondent/ plaintiff in the suit. party received a sum of Rs.47,50,000/- from the 2’^^ party/ plaintiff on 09.06.2011 which was arranged in the form of sum of Rs.29,00,000/- from the personal amount and Rs. 18,50,000/- from mother-in- law of the plaintiff and thereby a total sum of Rs.47,50,000/- was said to be paid by the 2""* party to the 1®* party. In view of the said deposit, the 1"^ party agreed to execute the fiats in favour of the 2""^ party in Siripuram Heights Apartments in Tirupati town and deliver the possession of the premises soon after completion of the work. In the alternative, he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.47,50,000/- to the 2'"'^ party. This document was signed by both parties on 02.11.2016 in the presence of two witnesses. The 1 Whereas the word “bond” is defined under Section 2(5) of the Indian 7. Stamp Act, 1899 which includes; (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b)any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another but does not include a debenture; The plain reading of the above said section discloses that there shall be a primary obligation under an instrument to pay money to another. But party received a sum of 8. here is a case under Ex.A-1 that the 1 4 party for the purpose of executing the flats in - party and delivery of the same soon after completion of the party agreed to pay the said nd Rs.47,50,000/- from the 2 nd favour of the 2 St work, failing which, in the alternative, the 1 received amount to the 2"^^ party. Here the primary obligation of the 1®' party is to complete the construction of flats and delivery of possession of the same on account of receiving the money already. In default, the above said contingency of return of money would arise. In view of the said contrast and thin line of distinction between the 9. nature of Ex.A-1 and the definition of the bond, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted to treat the Ex.A-1 as bond. The trial court relying upon the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly dismissed the l.A. dated 28.10.2024 against which the present revision is filed. As 1 see no merit in the revision, this C.R.P. is dismissed. Interim order. 10. if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2. One CC to Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G V L Murthy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SAM vna HIGH COURT DATED:20/06/2025 ORDER CRP No. 2888 of 2024 ^0 9 JUL 2025 ^vCuffMitSec p» ★ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS