Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARSIMHA REDDY
Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
K.Veereswara Rao - Respondent
CRP.No.2431/04
Decided On : 09-09-04
Advocates Appeared :
Mr.P. Shiv Kumar
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The dispute concerns the calculation of stamp duty on a deed of reconveyance, which is a document used to re-transfer property back to the original owner after a sale or mortgage agreement (!) .
The core issue is whether stamp duty should be calculated based on the actual consideration paid for the reconveyance or on the prevailing market value of the property at the time of registration (!) .
The document emphasizes that stamp duty on deeds of reconveyance should be levied on the actual consideration involved in the transaction, rather than on the market value of the property (!) .
The transaction in question was executed as a measure of security, similar to a mortgage, rather than an outright sale. This distinction affects the basis for calculating stamp duty, which, in this context, should be on the consideration amount rather than market value (!) (!) (!) .
The document discusses the legal principles differentiating sale transactions from security devices like mortgages or agreements to reconvey, highlighting that reconveyance transactions are not equivalent to ordinary sales for stamp duty purposes (!) (!) .
It is noted that the concept of market value is typically used for ordinary sale deeds, but in cases of reconveyance, especially when executed as a security measure, the value of the consideration paid is the appropriate basis for stamp duty calculation (!) (!) .
The document also mentions that levying stamp duty based on the market value in such cases could lead to an absurd or unconscionable situation, especially when the consideration is significantly lower than the market value, which would be penal or penalizing in nature (!) .
The order of the authority directing the deposit of deficit stamp duty based on market value was set aside, reaffirming that stamp duty should be calculated on the actual consideration amount in reconveyance cases (!) .
The legal principles outlined emphasize that the purpose and nature of the transaction—security versus outright sale—are crucial in determining the basis for stamp duty, and the law favors the consideration amount for reconveyance instruments (!) (!) .
The document concludes with a directive to release the reconveyance document and dismisses the revision petition, reinforcing the principle that stamp duty on deeds of reconveyance should be based on actual consideration paid, not market value (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
( 1 ) THIS revision presents an instance as to how the financial necessities of an individual would expose him or her to several compulsions and thereby make them to face the adverse consequences. Though the revision arises out of an order passed in a civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp act, 1899, it has a background spread over about three decades.
( 2 ) THE mother of the respondent viz. K. Anasuya was the absolute owner of the property admeasuring 1350 sq. yards in premises No. 16-2-705/1/5, Malakpet, hyderabad. In September, 1970, she was in dire need of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and approached one person viz. Ch. Bikshapathy for the same. He paid that amount. On 29. 9. 1970, a sale deed was executed conveying the said property in his favour and on the same day, an agreement of re-conveyance was executed to the effect that in case, she refunds the same amount within six years, he shall re-convey the property to her.
( 3 ) SMT. Anasuya offered to pay the amount in July, 1976. Her creditor appears to have developed affinity to the property and refused to accede to her request. That necessitated her to file O. S. No. 625 of 1976 in the Court of the n Additional judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for specific performance of the agreement of re-conveyance dated 29. 9. 1970. She deposited the entire sum into the Court on 24. 9. 1976. After serious contest, the suit was decreed on 15. 12. 1979. The creditor filed A. S. No. 175 of 1980 in the Court of additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad. It was dismissed on 4. 9. 1981. S. A. No. 969 of 1981 was filed in this Court and it was dismissed on 28. 1. 1987. The mother of the respondent died on 13. 7. 1987. S. L. P. No. 5534 of 1987 filed by the creditor was dismissed in 1987.
( 4 ) THE respondent filed E. P. No. 6 of 1988. This was also opposed by his creditor by filing E. A. No. 221 of 1988. The creditor filed O. S. No. 2041 of 1989 in the Court of the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, hyderabad for declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property. The E. P. was allowed on 20. 7. 1990 and O. S. No. 2041 of 1989 was dismissed in 1995. Even thereafter, the creditor created several obstacles by filing several applications in the execution petition and civil revision petition before this Court. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed on 6. 1. 1998 in the e. P. by the Court itself. However, the respondent had to face the trouble from another front.
( 5 ) ON 27. 1. 1998, the Sub-Registrar referred the sale deed to the District registrar under Section 47- A of the Act, for proper valuation. After hearing the objections, the District Registrar passed the order on 15. 7. 1999 directing the respondent herein to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,64,640/- towards the deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed C. M. A. No. 152 of 1999 in the Court of Chief Judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad. The appeal was allowed through judgment dated 30. 3. 2001. Hence, this revision by the State.
( 6 ) THE revision is preferred by the sub-Registrar and the Collector, the authority under Section 47-A of the Act. It is doubtful whether the second petitioner, being the adjudicatory authority, can figure as one of the contesting parties.
( 7 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for arbitration submits that the stamp duty on the sale deed has to be collected on the basis of the market value prevailing on the date on which it was presented for registration, and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the authority under Section 47-A of the Act. He submits that the lower appellate Court relied upon a judgment of this Court in Sub-Registrar, Kodad Town v. Amaranaini China Venkat Rao, 1998 (3) ALD 46 = AIR 1998 AP 252, and since the same was subsequently overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Siddula madhukar v. Government of A. P. , 2001 (3) ALD 317 (DB), the order under revision deserves to b
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
