N. M. Theerthegowda vs Y. M. Ashok Kumar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 720

HRISHIKESH ROY, S. V. N. BHATTI
N. M. Theerthegowda – Appellant
Versus
Y. M. Ashok Kumar – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR Mr. Parikshit Angadi, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Suraj Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Nanda Kumar, Adv. M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

S.V.N. Bhatti, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant filed O.S. No. 610 of 2015 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 04.11.1996, stated to have been executed by the respondents. The appellant also prayed to set aside the sale deed dated 13.08.2003, which the first and second respondents executed in favour of the third respondent. The appellant claims possession of suit schedule property as part performance under the agreement of sale dated 04.11.1996. An agreement of sale coupled with possession is deemed to be a conveyance warranting payment of ad valorem stamp duty. Admittedly, the suit agreement is written on stamp papers worth Rs.200/-. Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule of the Act, read with amended Stamp Act No. 8 of 1995, prescribes the duty as payable on a conveyance. The appellant has not produced the original agreement in O.S. No. 610 of 2015. The explanation offered by him is that the agreement is filed in a connected matter between the parties. From the order dated 14.08.2015, it appears that the appellant expressed readiness to pay duty and penalty on the certified copy of the agreement of sale dated 04.11.1996, now filed along with the plaint.