APHC010556732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 84 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dt.22.10.2024 passed in lA. No.1471 of 2024 in O.S. No. 17 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa. Between: 1. Gugamsetty Siva Prasad, S/o, Subanna, Aged 45 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.42/381-24-3-4, upstairs, NGO Colony, Kadapa City and District. 2. Gugamsetty Jaya Sankar, S/o. Subbanna, Aged 40 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.42/381-24-3-4, upstairs, NGO Colony, Kadapa City and District. ...PetitionersDefendants No.1 & 2 AND 1. Gorla Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Dasariah, Aged 48 years, Occ Software Engineer, R/o.D.No.20/801, Co-operative Colony, Kadapa City and District, Presently residing at 506 Seishin Minanu Heights, Ediogowa-ku, Tokyo-134-0087. 1-1-2 Seishin-cho, Represented by his GPA Holder Gmapa Thirupal, S/o. G. Ramaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.36/323- 56, Chinna chowk, Kadapa City and District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. M SIVA JYOTHI The Court made the following order: • ;:1:: APHC010556732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 ^ 0;:^ [3329] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 84/2025 Between: 1.GUGAMSETTY SIVA PRASAD,, S/0, SUSANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO.42/381-24-3-4, UPSTAIRS, NGO COLONY, KADAPA CITY AND DISTRICT. 2.GUGAMSETTY JAYA SANKAR,, S/0. SUBBANNA, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. D.NO.42/381-24-3-4, UPSTAIRS, NGO COLONY, DISTRICT. KADAPA CITY AND ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.GORLA SURYANARAYANA, S/o. Late Dasariah, Aged 48 years, Occ Software Engineer, R/o.D.No.20/801, Co operative Colony, Kadapa City and District, Presently residing at 506 Seishin Minanu Heights, 1-1-2 Seishin-cho, Ediogowa-ku, Tokyo-134-0087. Represented by his GPA Holder Gmapa Thirupal, S/o. G. Ramaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ Business, R/o. D.No.36/323-56, Chinna chowk, Kadapa City and District. ...RESPONDENT ::2:: a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order dt.22.10.2024 passed in lA. No.1471 of 2024 in O.S. No. 17 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Honble court of Principal District Judge, Kadapa and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. D SESHASAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1.M SIVA JYOTHI ::3:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 84/2025 This Court made the following ORDER: The brief facts of the case are: Petitioners herein / Defendants therein filed the I.A.No.1471 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2022 before learned Principal District Judge, Kadapa under Order-28 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to demark the Ex.AI and Ex.A2, which were an inadmissible documents in the eye of law as no stamp duty penalty has impounded and may be rejected in the interest of justice. 1. 2. As per the contents of the affidavit appended to the petition, the 1®* petitioner herein /I®* defendant therein averred that when the matter was posted on 22.07.2024 for marking of the documents, and on the same date the advocates were abstaining their duties and the has informed by their counsel, as such the petitioners herein and their counsel were not present on the said date and in turn PW-1 therein has present and Exs.AI to A13 have marked on behalf of respondent same 4 herein. Based upon Ex.A1 agreement of sale dated 01.06.2019 the respondent has filed the above case for grant of specific performance. The specific case of the respondent is that, he paid total sale consideration to the petitioners. He further submits that, when the respondent specifically contended that, under the agreement of sale, total sale consideration was paid then the document is nothing but sale deed but the alleged document is an unregistered document then it has hit by Section 17 of Registration Act, 1908 and apart from that the said agreement has also hit by collection of stamp duty and penalty as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The petitioner further averred that, during the course of marking of said document their counsel has failed to raise an objection for the aforesaid reason that, on the even date all advocates have abstained their duties and without considering the said aspect the Hon’ble Court has marked the agreement of sale dated 01.06.2019 as Ex.AI. It is settled law that, without payment of stamp duty and penalty the un-registered agreement of sale and under which the total sale consideration was passed, it cannot be marked Ex.AI since it is an inadmissible document in the eye of law. Therefore petitioners prayed to de-mark the said Ex.AI. The said I.A.No.1471 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 20221 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. as on ::5:: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Court below without proper appreciation under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 17(1 A) of the Registration Act, 1908, erroneously marked the subject document as Ex.AI and A2. He further canvassed that the LA. filed by the petitioners for de-marking of Ex.AI which is an un-registered and unduly stamped agreement of sale, which is the basis for instituting a suit for specific performance is inadmissible piece of evidence and therefore the order of the Court below dismissing I.A.No.1471 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2022 of the Petitioners is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. For which, the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B.V. Ramana Reddy and others v. Ceylon and India General Mission Church, Hindupur and others^ wherein the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed thus: “14. After amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure brought into effect in 2002, a new procedure hitherto unknown, has been introduced by amending Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC permitting filing of affidavits in lieu of Chief-examination. Therefore, affidavits in lieu of chief-examination are being filed through witnesses referring to certain documents in the said affidavit in support of the case of respective parties. Therefore, neither the Court nor the opposite party has an opportunity to scrutinize the admissibility or proof of such documents. ^2015(2) ALD 183 ::6:: A Since the objections as to admissibility of documents on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty or registration or otherwise would have a mark the documents which are mentioned in the affidavit in lieu of c lef-examination straight away without giving opportunity to the other party to dispute their admissibility.” 4. He further contended that in view of ratio laid down by this Hon'ble Court as mentioned above, the order of the Court in I.A.No.1471 of 2024 in O.S.No.17 of 2022 is iiabie to be set aside. below 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jatti Veera Venkata Satyam V. Bosukonda Chinnadevi and others^ which reads thus: 8.. In a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, an agreement of sale apparently described handing possession there under is sought to be marked, an objection was raised that it requires stamp duty under Article 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, ('the Act', for brevity) and it needs to be further registered as per Section 17 of the Registration Act However, it is contended by the plaintiff that though there recital that possession was handed was when over 1908. IS a over, in fact, no possession given thereunder and thus, the suit is filed for specific performance as well as recovery of possession and that the very case of the plaintiff is that no possession was delivered under the said document. But, on the other hand, it is contended that the contents of the document would determine the document for the nature of the purpose of collection of stamp duty and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff is frivolous 9. Insofar as non-registration of the _ though Section 17 of the Registration Act agreement is concerned, : requires registration of 2023(3)ALT345 = MANU/AP/1980/2022 ::7:: an agreement of sale, by virtue of Section 49 of the Registration Act, even an unregistered agreement of sale can be received in evidence in a suit for specific performance. Therefore, whatever contention raised for making of the document on the ground of want of registration cannot be entertained. But that does not dispense with the need for payment of necessary stamp duty. Therefore, it is to be seen whether the agreement of sale, in the present case, requires stamp duty under Article 47-A of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 12. It is further contended that since the agreement of sale has already been marked without raising any objection, the document cannot be demarked for want of stamp duty in view of Section 36 of the Act. In support of the said contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Shyamal Kumar Roy v. Sushil Kumar AgarwalS, wherein it was held that if an instrument though under-stamped is admitted in evidence without the other side objecting to it, the right to reopen the issue is lost. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Javer Chand v. (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618 (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 331 BSB, J Pukhraj Surana 4 on the same proposition which is referred and relied on by the Supreme Court in Shyamal Kumar Roy (3 supra). 19. A perusal of the ratios in the aforesaid decisions indicate that while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has interfered with the order passed by the trial Courts while marking the document as against the requirement of law under substantive provisions. A distinction is to be made as to the objection on the ground of want of registration and objection raised for want of sufficiency of stamp duty required. In case of insufficiency of stamp duty. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act prohibits raising such objection subsequent to receipt of document in evidence, whereas, no such similar provision is found in the Registration Act. On the other hand, Section 49 of the Registration Act permits receipt of unregistered documents in evidence for certain purposes, in spite of the requirement of law for such document to be registered. 20. In the present case, the agreement of sale which requires stamp duty under Article 47-A is executed on a deficit stamped paper, i.e., of Rs.lOO/- only, yet, the same was marked without BSB, J raising any such objection. It is only during the cross-examination of PW1, such an objection was raised by the defendants. In view of the express prohibition made under Section 36 of the Stamp Act, no such objection can be raised on the ground of insufficiency of stamp duty. As such, the document, which is already marked as exhibit A1, cannot be demarked, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.” ::8;: a, 6. Considering the submissions made by both the counsel perusal of the ratio relied upon by the petitioners herein squarely applicable to the facts of the present on is not case, on the other hand the other grounds relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are negatived in subsequent judgment rendered by this Hon ble Court, whereas the correct ratio was laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Jatti Veera Venkata Satyam’s case (Supra 2), which is rendered in similar circumstances of the case on hand and the said judgment is separate in all aspects and rightly held that in a suit for specific performance regarding claim the document with insufficient stamp duty can be addressed even after marking the document. Therefore, there that are no merits to interfere with the orders of the Court below and accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. Sd/-M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Kadapa. 2. One CC to SRI. D SESHASAYANA 3. One CC to M/s. M SIVA 4. Two CD Copies REDDY Advocate [OPUC] JYOTHI Advocate [OPUC] nm HIGH COURT DATED:08/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 84 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP