Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Mukesh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14808 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 4293 of 2021)
Decided On : 20-12-2024
(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(b) – Stamp Act, 1899 – Schedule I or I-A read with Section 3 – Levy of stamp duty – Registration of land acquired through consent decree passed in civil suit – Registration of document and payment of stamp duty are separate and distinct concepts – If a compromise decree involves immovable property other than property for which a decree is prayed for, such a property would not be exempted and would require registration – To avail exemption from mandate of compulsory registration of documents conveying immovable property of a value of more that Rs 100/-, compromise decree arrived must be only in respect of property that is subject-matter of suit – Compromise arrived at before Lok Adalat and award passed by Lok Adalat thereto assume character of a decree passed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC and would also come within ambit and purview of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of Act, 1908. (Para 7)
(B) Stamp Act, 1899 – Schedule I or I-A read with Section 3 – Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(1)(b) – Levy of stamp duty – Registration of land acquired through consent decree passed in civil suit – Stamp duty is not chargeable on an order/decree of Court as the same do not fall within documents mentioned in Schedule I or I-A read with Section 3 of Stamp Act, 1899 – Compromise decree does not fall under instruments mentioned in Schedule and it only asserts pre-existing rights – In facts of the case, consent decree will not operate as conveyance as no right is transferred and same does not require any payment of stamp duty – Since appellant has only asserted pre-existing right and no new right was created through consent decree, document pertaining to mutation of subject land is not liable for stamp duty – Impugned order passed by High Court, upholding orders of authorities below, set aside – Authority concerned shall make mutation of revenue records in respect of subject land in favour of appellant. (Paras 13 and 14)
(C) Property Law – Title – Revenue records are not documents of title – Any entry therein will not ipso facto confer ownership – In present case, possession is continuously with appellant – Continuous and uninterrupted adverse possession would confer right, title and interest and same can be used as a sword – Suit has been filed by appellant seeking declaration asserting his pre-existing right, title and interest and for permanent injunction – Thereafter, in terms of compromise entered into between parties, suit was decreed in favour of appellant – Through compromise decree, appellant did not obtain any new right, but he has asserted his pre-existing right/ title/ interest over subject land. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
There are two issues involved herein viz., Registration of the document and payment of stamp duty, which are separate and distinct concepts.
Findings of Court:
Compromise decree reached finality, as the Respondent No.1 has not challenged the same. There is no finding of collusion between the parties in entering into the compromise by any Court as on date. Indisputably, property is the subject matter of the suit. Thus, the appellant has satisfied conditions enumerated in section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, 1908 and hence, subject land acquired by him by way of compromise decree, requires no registration.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 06.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore1[Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”] in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition bearing No.3317 of 2019 filed by the appellant herein. By the said order, the High Court upheld the order dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps, determining stamp duty at Rs.6,67,500/- payable by the appellant qua land in Survey No.2087, 2088/9/1/1 measuring an extent of 0.076 Ares situated at Village Kheda, Tehsil Badnawar, District Dhar2[Hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”], acquired by him by way of consent decree, as affirmed by the Board of Revenue by order dated 12.02.2019
3. Originally, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.47-A/2013 before the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-2, Badnawar, for declaration and permanent injunction against one Abhay Kumar (Respondent No.2 herein) and the State of Madhya Pradesh (Respondent No.1 herein) stating that he is the owner of the subject land and is in long and continuous possession of the same by doing cultivation. It was alleged in the said suit that in the year 2013, the Respondent No.2 herein, who is the adjacent land owner of the appellant, attempted to sell the subject land to third parties, thereby dispossessing the appellant from the same. Pending the suit, both the parties entered into a compromise, based on which, the suit came to be decreed in favour of the appellant, on 30.11.2013 and the Respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh did not raise any objection nor filed any appeal against the said compromise decree. In terms of the said order dated 30.11.2013, the appellant applied for mutation of the said land before the Tehsildar concerned, who in turn referred the case to the Collector of Stamps, District Dhar (M.P). Upon perusal of the records, the Collector of Stamps initiated proceedings under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and consequently directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,67,500/- towards stamp duty, by order dated 23.08.2016. Challenging the said order, the appellant preferred a revision, which was dismissed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, vide order dated 12.02.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred Miscellaneous Petition No.3317 of 2019 to quash the said orders passed by the Collector of Stamps as well as the Board of Revenue. By the order impugned herein, the High Court dismissed the said Miscellaneous Petition, relying on its earlier order dated 24.07.2019 passed in M.P.No.3634 of 20193[Siddhulal Kachi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another], wherein, reference was made to (i)the decision of this Court in Bhoop Singh v. Ram Singh Major, (1995) 5 SCC 709, in which, it was held that ‘if a compromise decree is obtained as a device to obviate payment of stamp duty and frustrate the latter requirement of registration, then such a decree is required to be registered under the Registration Act and as a consequence thereof, the stamp duty is also payable’; and (ii)the order of the High Court dated 13.02.2017 in WP No.2170 of 2015 Mohd. Yusuf and others v. Rajkumar and others; and ultimately, it was held that the consent decree obtained in the suit, through which, new right was created over the property, needs registration and for this reason, stamp duty is also required to be paid. Being dissatisfied with the same, this appeal came to be filed by the appellant before this court.
4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the issue involved in this matter is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Mohd. Yusuf v. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 264, wherein, the order dated 13.02.2017 passed in W.P.No.2170/2015 relied on by the High Court in the order dated 24.07.2019 passed in M.P.No.3634 of 2019, based on which, the order impugned herein came to be passed by the High Court, has been set aside, by holding that a compromi
(1) Stamp duty is not chargeable on an order/decree of Court as the same do not fall within documents mentioned in Schedule I or I-A read with Section 3 of Stamp Act, 1899.(2) Registration of documen....
A compromise decree creating new rights in immovable property requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act if it establishes rights for the first time.
Compromise decree creating new right in immovable property for consideration, rather than declaring pre-existing right, requires compulsory registration under Section 17(1) Registration Act and attra....
(1) Family settlement only declares rights which are already possessed by parties. An aggrieved person can seek enforcement of family settlement in a suit for declaration wherein family members have ....
Compromise decree comprising immovable property other than which is subject-matter of suit or proceeding requires registration, although any decree or order of a court is exempted from registration.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
