SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, R.MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Shyamsundar Radheshyam Agrawal & Anr - Appellants
Versus
Pushpabai Nilkanth Patil & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10804 of 2024(Arising out of SLP (C) No.5843 of 2021)
Decided on : 24-09-2024
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Sections 33, 34 and 37 – Agreements to sell – Impounding of documents for not duly stamped – Stamp duty is on instrument and not on transaction – Instruments /documents were not forming part of a single transaction between same parties and they were different transactions between different vendors and purchasers – For several documents to form part of a single transaction, there must be a transaction in furtherance of which several other documents are executed to complete that transaction and then it becomes imperative to charge stamp duty on principal instrument/document – An agreement for sale is to be treated as a “conveyance” if either possession is handed over immediately or if it is agreed to be handed over within a particular time – Agreement for sale consists of a clause whereby possession was handed over to purchaser satisfying requirement to treat the instrument as conveyance and what remained was only formality of execution of sale deed – Subsequent sale deed cannot be construed as a principal transaction and agreements to sell would be treated as principal conveyance – Since, State cannot recover by way of stamp duty in excess of what it is entitled to, recovery shall be restricted only to the extent of difference in stamp duty and entire penalty from date of execution of agreement for sale till date of payment of stamp duty. (Paras 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is filed assailing final order dated 03.03.2021 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.4695 of 2017, by which, High Court has dismissed writ petition, thereby affirming order dated 26.10.2016 passed by trial Court in allowing application filed by Defendant No.46 for impounding six documents produced by appellants herein.
Findings of Court:
In the documents, though there was a clause for conveyance between the vendors and purchasers in relation to the respective properties, value of properties were above Rs.100/- and there was also a clause by which possession was admittedly handed over on the date of agreement, implying acquisition of possessory rights protected under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, which requires payment of proper stamp duty and registration as mandated under Section 17 of Registration Act.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed assailing the final order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (hereinafter shortly referred to as "the High Court") in Writ Petition No.4695 of 2017, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition, thereby affirming the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the Court of 4th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Thane, (hereinafter shortly referred to as “the trial Court”) in allowing the application filed by the Defendant No.46 for impounding the six documents produced by the appellants herein.
3. Originally, the appellants instituted a suit in Special Civil Suit No.200 of 2008 seeking declaration and injunction. Denying the plaint averments, the defendants filed their written statements. Thereafter, the Defendant No.46 took out an application under Sections 33, 34 & 37 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 r/w Section 17 of the Registration Act, to impound the six original agreements for sale viz., Exh.145/3 dated 20.07.1994, Exh.145/9 dated 20.07.1994, Exh.145/15 dated 12.10.1994, Exh.145/19 dated 12.10.1994, Exh.145/23 dated 27.04.2006 and Exh.145/25 dated 19.09.2004 produced by the appellants, so as to get them registered, on the premise that the said documents include a clause that the physical possession of the properties mentioned therein, was transferred to the purchasers; however, they were not duly stamped; and hence, the documents require the payment of stamp duty of the conveyance. By order dated 26.10.2016, the trial Court allowed the said application, thereby impounding the documents and directing to send the same to the Collector of Stamp, Thane, for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty, if any, payable by the appellants. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition, which was dismissed by the High Court, by the order impugned in this appeal.
4. Referring to Section 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter shortly referred to as “the Act”), the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the agreements to sell in relation to the same immovable properties ultimately resulted into a sale deed in favour of the appellants and the said sale deed was also duly registered, upon payment of the required stamp duty and therefore, the prior agreements to sell are not required to be registered and stamped. Further, one of the agreements in respect of 2.550 sq. meters of land was executed in favour of Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation and hence, no separate stamp duty is required to be paid by the appellants. However, misinterpreting the said provision, the trial Court allowed the application filed for impounding the documents and directed to send the same to the Collector for adjudication of stamp duty and penalty, which was also erroneously affirmed by the High Court.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that on a detailed analysis of the agreements to sell, wherein, there was a specific clause about the transfer of physical possession to the purchasers therein, the courts below have rightly allowed the application filed for impounding these documents and, therefore, the same need not be interfered with by this Court.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record, more particularly, the documents in question.
7. The issue involved herein is, whether the appellants are liable to pay stamp duty and penalty on the agreements to sell executed prior to the sale deed executed in their favour, in respect of two properties viz., (i) S.No.165/4 admeasuring 2,550 sq. mtrs. and (ii) S.No.208/3 admeasuring 860 sq. mtrs. and S.No.208/4 admeasuring ,5650 sq. mtrs.
8. In order to determine the stamp duty that is chargeable upon an instrument, the legal rule is that the real and true meaning of the instrument is to be determined by ascertaining the intention of the pa
Stamp duty is on instrument and not on transaction – For several documents to form part of a single transaction, there must be a transaction in furtherance of which several other documents are execut....
Suit for Specific Performance – Liability to pay stamp duty – Stamp duty is on instrument and not on transaction – It is immaterial, whether possession of property has been handed over at the time of....
Under the Indian Stamp Act, once a document is found to be insufficiently stamped, the court is duty-bound to impound the document and send it to the Collector for proper assessment and payment of th....
An agreement for a future lease contingent on construction does not constitute a lease and cannot be impounded for stamp duty until the property exists.
Unregistered agreement for sale with possession, stamped as conveyance under amnesty, is principal instrument under Section 4; subsequent registered sale deed is other instrument attracting fixed dut....
Documents must be duly stamped to be admissible in evidence; the court has the authority to impound insufficiently stamped documents under the Karnataka Stamp Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.