The respondents/ plaintiffs filed I.A.No.560 of 2022 under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act to send the possessory agreement of sale dated 10.09.1991 for impounding to the District Registrar, Ongole for payment of stamp duty and penalty, contending that the suit document is followed by possession and as such the stamp duty and penalty has to be paid for getting it marked in evidence.

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1937 of 2022

Between:

Poruri Sri Rama Murali Krishna,

Son of late Venkata Subbaiah, 76 years,

Resident of 4A, Orchid Villa, Lane-2, Street-6,

West Maredpalli, Secunderabad.

… PETITIONER

AND

Ravi Gopi Krishna, Son of late Hanumantha Rao,

Aged about 42 years, Cultivation,

R/o. Dyvaloaravuru Village, Korisapadu Mandal,

Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh and another

... RESPONDENTS

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 28.03.2023

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

May be allowed to see the order? Yes/No

2. Whether the copy of order may be

 Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to

 See the fair copy of the order? Yes/No

_____________________

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI,J

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

2

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

+ C.R.P.No. 1937 of 2022

% DATED: 28.03.3023

Between:

# Poruri Sri Rama Murali Krishna,

Son of late Venkata Subbaiah, 76 years,

Resident of 4A, Orchid Villa, Lane-2, Street-6,

West Maredpalli, Secunderabad.

 … PETITIONER

AND

$ 1. Ravi Gopi Krishna, Son of late Hanumantha Rao,

Aged about 42 years, Cultivation,

R/o. Dyvaloaravuru Village, Korisapadu Mandal,

Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh and another

... RESPONDENTS

! Counsel for petitioner : Sri V. Surendra Reddy

^Counsel for Respondents : Sri Marri Venkata Ramana

<GIST :

>HEAD NOTE:

? Cases referred:

1

. 2019 SCC OnLine AP 268

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1937 of 2022

ORDER:

 This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated

23.08.2022 passed in I.A.No.560 of 2022 in O.S.NO.121 of 2017 by the

learned I Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

 2. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are the

plaintiffs in the suit filed for specific performance of possessory

agreement of sale.

 3. The respondents/ plaintiffs filed I.A.No.560 of 2022 under

Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act to send the possessory agreement of

sale dated 10.09.1991 for impounding to the District Registrar, Ongole

for payment of stamp duty and penalty, contending that the suit

document is followed by possession and as such the stamp duty and

penalty has to be paid for getting it marked in evidence. The petitioner/

defendant opposed the said petition by filing counter contending that the

document does not contain the fundamental contractual norms and the

same is morphed, sham and manipulated one only to grab the property.

 4. The Court below, upon hearing both the parties and upon

perusing the material available on record, allowed the petition.

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

4

 5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/ defendant preferred this Civil

Revision Petition.

 6. Heard Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents.

 7. Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would

submit that, the contents of the suit ex facie show that the suit is barred

by limitation, having been filed 31 years after the alleged possessory

agreement of sale of the year 1991, but, the Court below upon

misconception of the facts of the case as well as law applicable, allowed

the petition. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

 8. Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondents,

would submit that, the Court below, upon perusing the material available

on record has rightly allowed the petition and no valid and justifiable

grounds are either raised or urged in this Civil Revision Petition

warranting interference of this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil

Revision Petition.

 9. In the suit filed for specific performance of the possessory

agreement of sale, the respondents/ plaintiffs filed a petition under

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

5

Section 35 of the Stamp Act to send the suit agreement of sale for

collection of stamp duty and penalty.

10. It is a well established principle of law that, at the stage of

collection of deficit stamp duty and penalty, there is no need to go into

the other aspects as to for what purpose the said document is sought to

be relied on, whether it is for the main purpose or for collateral purpose,

by the parties, as well as its proof, relevancy and admissibility. The said

aspects can well be gone into at the appropriate stage.

11. Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, ordains that every person

having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and

every person in charge of a public office, except an officer or police,

before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is

produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it

appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the

same. Thus, a duty is cast upon the judicial officers to seize or take

possession of the document for collection of deficit stamp duty & penalty.

12. In Parchuri Sireesha and another vs. Challapalli Jalaja

1

,

this Court held as follows:

1

. 2019 SCC OnLine AP 268

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

6

“12. In the light of the settled legal position and the duty that is cast

upon the learned Judge of the trial Court, the learned Judge is obliged

nay duty bound to impound (seize/take possession of) the document

and collect the deficit stamp duty & penalty as per the provisions of the

Act, when the document is admittedly not duly stamped, and see that

no loss of revenue is caused to the exchequer of the State

Government. Therefore, turning a blind eye to the statutory mandate

and dismissing of the petition of the defendants by the trial Court on

the ground that no purpose would be served by collection of deficit

stamp duty & penalty on the gift deed as it is unregistered, though

compulsorily registerable, is erroneous as any document brought before

a Court should comply with the requirement of Section 35 of the Indian

Stamp Act and the Court is duty bound to impound and collect deficit

stamp duty & penalty, if any such document is found to be not duly

stamped. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the trial Court

committed a grave error in refusing the request of the defendants to

pass orders to collect stamp duty and penalty on the subject gift deed.”

 13. The observations referred to above makes it clear that, the

Court is duty bound to impound and collect deficit stamp duty & penalty,

if any such document is found to be not duly stamped and also to see

that no loss of revenue is caused to the State exchequer.

 14. It is relevant here to note that, collection of stamp duty and

penalty would not accrue any automatic right to the party to have the

document exhibited, unless the Court is satisfied that the said document

can be received and marked as per the provisions of law and guidelines

given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time in this regard.

 15. The contents of the counter filed by the petitioner before the

Court below and the grounds raised in this revision petition touching the

merits of the case need not be gone into at the time of deciding this

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

7

application. There is neither illegality nor impropriety found in the orders

impunged. No valid and justifiable grounds are either raised or urged in

this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference of this Court.

16. The record further discloses that, this Court vide orders dated

18.04.2019 passed in Civil Revision Petition No.1017 of 2019, upon

considering the age of the petitioner, has directed the trial Court to

dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible. It is brought to the

notice of this Court that, despite the said direction, the trial Court did not

even frame issues till today. The trial Court is directed to adhere to the

direction meticulously.

17. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. The Trial Court is directed to take

necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the suit.

As sequel thereto, miscellaneous petition, if any, pending shall

stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

_________________________

JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

28th March, 2023

Note: LR copy to be marked

 B/o

 RR

2023:APHC:12040

RC,J

CRP No.1937 of 2022

8

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1937 of 2022

 28 March, 2023

RR

2023:APHC:12040