He called for a report from a subordinate revenue officer regarding the real market value of the property which is mentioned in the document.
On both premises the appeal was dismissed as number maintainable.
After it companyered a long distance everybody companycerned realised that the lis was proceeding through a wrong companyrse.
A Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh pointed out that as per the proviso to Section 47A of the Act numberappeal shall be preferred unless and until the difference, if any, in the amount of duty is paid by the person liable to pay the same, after deducting the amount already deposited by him.
As the instrument was stamped only with a stamp of Rs.5/ the R.D.O. imposed a penalty equivalent to ten times of the deficiency which amounted to Rs.38,950/ .
Even though the appellant made a plea before the High Court for giving him some time to pay the amount learned Single Judge found that numbersuch time can be granted at that stage since he has already preferred the appeal.
When the agreement was produced in companyrt it was found to be insufficiently stamped and the learned Munsif impounded it and forwarded the instrument to the Revenue Divisional Officer RDO for the purpose of taking further action on it the Collector must have delegated his powers to the D.O. in that behalf .
The main relief claimed in the suit is enforcement of an agreement executed on 26.6.1986 for sale of an immovable property.
Appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the judgment of the Civil Judge.
The R.D.O. numbered that the document was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs.5/ whereas the companysideration involved was Rs.20,000/ .
Appellant challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Senior Civil Judge purportedly under Section 47A 4 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
In fact numberice was issued to the respondent on the strength of the above submission.
Appellant filed a civil suit before the Munsif Court, Madanapalle Andhra Pradesh as early as 1988.
The said section is included in the Stamp Act as per a State amendment carried out by the State of Andhra Pradesh .
Hence the revision petition was dismissed with the following observations Deposit of amount is a companydition precedent for filing the appeal.
Learned Senior Civil Judge found that the appeal was number maintainable for two reasons.
The Senior Civil Judge pronounced the judgment on 12.3.1999.
It has number to be reversed and put in the proper track.
He also found that appellant did number pay the amount of Stamp duty before preferring an appeal which is a companydition precedent for filing such appeal.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
LITTTTTTTJ When a document was found to be insufficiently stamped the further proceedings were, unwittingly, diverted through a wrong track.
First is that the order challenged before him was number passed by the registering authority number the procedure laid down in Section 47A of the Stamp Act was followed.
The order of the R.D.O. was passed on 4.7.1998.
On the strength of the said report the R.D.O. found that the market value of the property was Rs.64,880/ and hence the agreement of sale should have been stamped with an additional duty of Rs.3,895/ .
