PATURI VEERA VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO Vs. RAYUDU VENKATA KRISHNA RAO
LAWS(APH)-2022-2-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on February 23,2022

Paturi Veera Venkata Narasimha Rao Appellant
VERSUS
Rayudu Venkata Krishna Rao Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

B RATNAMALA VS. G RUDRAMMA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.) The petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.629 of 2015 on the file of XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against the respondent herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dtd. 28/6/2015. In the course of the case, an issue had arisen as to whether the suit for agreement to sell has to be impounded for payment of stamp duty and penalty by treating the said document as a document of sale, under Explanation-1 to Article 47-A of Schedule-1 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. After hearing both sides, the trial Court by an order dtd. 8/4/2021 had held that the document is chargeable as a sale under Explanation-1 to Article 47-A of Schedule-1 A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petition.
(2.) Heard Sri S.V.S.S. Sivaram learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners and Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.
(3.) The 2nd Petitioner is the daughter of the respondent and the 1st petitioner is the husband of the 2nd petitioner. The case of the petitioners, in the trial Court was that, the respondent, who was the owner of a plot of land had constructed the ground floor of a building and then gifted, by way of a registered deed of gift, dtd. 28/4/1999, the eastern side of the open terrace portion on the top of the ground floor to an extent of 450 square feet along with undivided interest in the land to an extent of 10 square yards out of the total extent of 319.5 square yards. The son of the defendant is said to have constructed a first floor on the eastern side, while the defendant had constructed the remaining portion of the first floor. Thereafter, in the year 2010, the 2nd petitioner is said to have constructed with her own funds and with the permission of the respondent, the entire 2nd floor of the building and that the respondent had orally gifted the entire 2nd floor to the 2nd petitioner with a promise to execute a Registered Gift Settlement Deed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.