P.Ramakrishnam Raju, J.:-

(1) The plaintiff is the appellant herein, who filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 15 - 6 - 1996. According to her the 1st respondent offered to sell an extent of ac. 4. 95 cents in r. S. Nos. 306/3 and 307 of nandigama village for a consideration of rs. 3,95,400/ - and the appellant agreed to purchase the same on 15 - 6 - 1996 and paid the entire consideration. The said agreement was attested by the wife of the 1st respondent and possession was also delivered to her on that date. Ever since, she was in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the 1st respondent is trying to evade the execution of sale deed and he is making attempts to trespass into the plaint schedule land she filed the suit. Pending the suit she filed la. No. 729 of 1997 on the file of the learned subordinate judge, machilipatnam for a temporary injunction. As the said application was dismissed, this appeal is filed.

(2) In the agreement respondents 2 and 3, who are minor unmarried daughters of the 1st respondent were also parties and being minors they are represented by their father, the 1st respondent. Respondents 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit denied the execution of the suit agreement. It is also denied that their mother also attested the said agreement. Receipt of consideration was also denied under the said agreement as also the delivery of possession.

(3) In the lower court no oral evidence was adduced. However, the appellant filed exs. A - 1 to a - 9. Ex. A - 1 is a copy of the village account no. 3, adangal/ pahani for 1406 f, which is signed by the husband of the appellant. The lower court commented that the appellant did not file a certified copy of no. 3 account for 1996 - 97 and ex. A - 1 is not a certified copy of no. 3 account maintained in the office of the mandal revenue officer. Ex. A - 2 is the land revenue receipt dated 2 - 5 - 1997 issued by the husband of the appellant. Ex. A - 3 is the certified copy prepared by the husband of the appellant and it was attested by the mandal revenue officer to show that the appellant was in possession of the plaint schedule property. Ex. A - 4 is another certified copy issued by the sarpanch to the same effect. Ex. A - 5 are the receipts showing the payment of wages to the labourers engaged by the appellant. Ex. A - 6 are also bunch of receipts. Ex. A - 7 is the copy of the petition in i. A. No. 524 of 1997 and ex. A - 8 is the copy of notice issued by the appellant to respondent no. 1 asking him to execute sale deed. Ex. A - 9 is the postal acknowledgment of the said notice. These are the document which are filed to show the possession of the appellant. It is admitted that the appellant's husband is the village administrative officer and as such the lower court felt that it is not safe to rely upon the documents, exs. A - 1 and a - 2, issued by him for judging the possession of the plaint schedule property. She ought to have obtained the certified copies instead of relying upon the copies issued by her husband. Ex. A - 3 is also another certified copy issued by her husband, which was attested by the mandal revenue officer. Ex. A - 4 is the certificate issued by the sarpanch. The lower court commented that instead of producing the copies of the adangals prepared by her husband she should have produced certified copies of adangals particularly in view of the allegation that the husband of the appellant has brought into existence those documents. The receipts in ex. A - 5 and the photographs, ex. A - 6 also do not support the case of the appellant. Ex. A - 8, copy of the notice is a relevant document, since it is a notice issued by the appellant to the 1st respondent asking him to execute sale deed in pursuance of agreement of sale, but there is no mention of the date of agreement of sale. Therefore, the lower court, in our view, rightly came to the conclusion that these documents do not establish the rightful possession of the appellant.

(4) Sri c. Poornaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit agreement was filed before the lower court, but the same was not admitted in evidence for want of requisite stamp. According to him u/s 33 of the indian stamp act, 1899, when an insufficiently stamped document is produced or comes to its notice, every person in - charge of public office, except a police officer, shall impound the same. Section 35 mandates that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence, unless the said instrument is duly stamped. However, sri c. Poornaiah contends that in view of these two provisions when the document is tendered before the court it is the duty of the court to impound and direct him to pay the penalty and stamp duty and as this was not done, the lower court cannot reject the same. We cannot accede to this contention. Section 35 of the act clearly mandates that no document chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence unless it is duly stamped. Therefore there is clear embargo for the court to receive an insufficiently stamped document in evidence, but at the same time section 33 authorises the court to impound an insufficiently stamped document. A combined reading of these two provisions makes it clear that a document which is insufficiently stamped cannot be admitted in evidence and as long as it remains an insufficiently stamped document, there is no question of admitting it in evidence and act upon it. But at the same time the court has the power to impound the said document and when once it is impounded it can be received and acted upon. In this case the document is not impounded. Therefore the lower court is right in not receiving the document or acting upon it. The duty of the appellant does not cease by merely tendering the insufficiently stamped document without taking steps for impounding. If an application is filed for impounding u/s 33 of the act it is open to the court to consider the same. It is also open to the appellant to request the court to send it to the competent authority for impounding. As this exercise was not done by the appellant, we cannot find fault with the lower court for not impounding the document or receiving the same in evidence and act upon it.

(5) Sri v. V. Prabhakara rao, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the contention of the appellant that the entire consideration was paid in cash at the time of execution of the suit agreement cannot be believed since in such an event there is no impediment for the appellant to obtain registered sale deed instead of executing an agreement of sale. That apart respondents 2 and 3 are minors and also entitled to equal shares along with the 1st respondent and without obtaining permission from the district court their shares cannot be alienated by their guardian, the 1st respondent. He contends that the 1st respondent is not mentally sound person and therefore he cannot act either on his behalf or on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and enter into an agreement of sale. The said agreement, according to the respondents, was brought into existence by the husband of the appellant. That is why the notice issued by the appellant in ex. A - 8 does not contain the date of agreement or the terms of agreement, including the delivery of possession. Having regard to these circumstances, the learned counsel contends that there is no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favour of the appellant. All these are matters to be decided in the suit. Suffice it for the present that the said agreement is not marked in evidence and therefore it cannot be relied upon for the purpose of disposal of the petition. Of course, it is open to the appellant to come forward with a request to impound the insufficiently stamped agreement in the suit by paying the penalty and stamp duty. Till this is done we cannot find fault with the lower court for not giving effect to the terms of the said agreement. The other defects like the shares of respondents 2 and 3, being unmarried minor daughters, cannot be alienated without the permission of the district court and similar other objections again are matters to be considered during the trial of the suit. The question whether rs. 100/ - stamp is necessary for execution of agreement and that the stamps purchased in the name of the 1st respondent, who is the vendor, can be utilised, are all matters, which have to be gone into after letting in evidence in the suit.

(6) The appellant also filed an application in c. M. P. No. 8491 of 1998 under order 11 rule 27, c. P. C. To receive certain documents as additional evidence and mark them as exs. A - 10 to a - 13. One of the documents shows that during 1406 - f the name of the appellant was entered in column no. 13 as the enjoyer. In view of the fact that the appellant's husband is the village administrative officer, these documents have to be tested in evidence as it is the village administrative officer that will make the entries in the village records.

(7) I. A. No. 243 of 1986 is an application filed by respondents 2 and 3 forappointment of receiver in the lower court, which was dismissed by the lower court since thiscourt granted interim injunction on 1 - 9 - 1997 and therefore the lower court felt prima facie the 1st respondent is in possession of the plaint schedule property. This document, in our view, cannot help in deciding the real controversy in this appeal. The documents dated 29 - 9 - 1997 and 14 - 4 - 1998 issued by the m. R. O. To show that the appellant alone is in possession of the plaint property are not helpful to the appellant as the interim order of status quo was granted by the trial court on filing the suit in july, 1997. We therefore find that these documents cannot advance the case of the appellant.

(8) For all the above reasons we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the lower court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(9) However, to safeguard the interest of the appellant, the respondents willdeposit a sum of rs. 5000/ - per acre per annum for both the crops, pending disposal of the suit. The first of such deposit shall be made by 31st january, 1999. The appellant shall also deposit at the same rate for the two crops raised during the year 1996 - 97 which would come to rs. 25,000/ - within a period of three months from to - day. The lower court will keep the amounts in f. D. R. In a nationalised bank, pending disposal of the suit. The lower court will dispose of the suit uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this appeal.