SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1965 Supreme(AP) 260

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHANDRASEKHARA SASTRI, JAGMOHAN REDDY, VENKATESAM
Vinay Construction and Development Company, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 11-19-65

The word "price", which is called "premium" in S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, is money only and not any valuable consideration.

Headnote:

STAMP ACT - LEASE - PREMIUM - INVESTMENT IN NEW BUILDING - WHETHER PREMIUM - INTERPRETATION OF ART. 31 (C) OF SCH. I-A OF THE STAMP ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the interpretation of Cl. (5) of an amended lease deed filed by M/s. Vinay Construction and Development Co., Hyderabad, for adjudication under S. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act. The lease was for 55 years at an annual rent of Rs. 36,000 with a sum of Rs. 40,000 to be paid as advance. Clause 5 of the lease deed allowed the lessees to construct a building or buildings on the premises, valued at approximately Rs. 6 lakhs, and to demolish existing structures if necessary. The question arose whether the investment of Rs. 6 lakhs by the lessees could be treated as premium and stamp duty charged on it in addition to that chargeable on the annual rent reserved and the advance paid.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the amount agreed to be invested in the construction of a building as consideration for the lease is not premium within the meaning of Art. 31 (c) of the Stamp Act. The court interpreted the word "price", which is called "premium" in S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, as money only and not any valuable consideration.

Issues: 1. Whether the amount agreed to be invested in a new building under Cl. 5 of the lease deed is premium for purposes of levy of stamp duty under Art. 31 (c)? 2. In the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, whether the sum of Rs. 6 lakhs should alone be treated as premium, or the difference between Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 3,50,000 (the existing value of the building as per Cl. 5 of the lease deed) should be treated as premium?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of "premium" in S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, which states that premium is the price paid or promised for a lease of immovable property. The court also referred to several High Court decisions which had interpreted the word "price" in S. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (which defines sale as an exchange of property for a price) as meaning money only. The court concluded that the amount agreed to be invested in the construction of a building as consideration for the lease is not premium within the meaning of Art. 31 (c) of the Stamp Act.

Final Decision: The court answered the first question in the negative, i.e., in favor of the lessees. In view of the answer to the first question, there was no need to answer the second question. The reference was answered accordingly, with costs.

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference under S. 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act involves the interpretation of Cl. (5) of the amended lease deed filed by M/s. Vinay Construction and Development Co. , Hyderabad, for adjudication under S. 31 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter called the Stamp Act) of the Collector of Stamps.

( 2 ) THE Collector of Stamps, viz. , the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps, Andhra Pradesh, had by his letter, dated 25-6-1964 referred the several matters arising out of the lease deed for an authoritative opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, viz. , the Board of Revenue, under Section 56 (2) of the Stamp Act. The lease was for 55 years at an annual rent of Rs. 36,000 and under Cls. 7 and 12, municipal taxes and insurance premium were payable by the lessees. Under the terms of the lease, a sum of Rs. 40,000 was to be paid as advance and the lease is to commence from the date the lessor puts the lessees in vacant possession of the premises at 6-1-1081 and 6-1-1082, Lakdika-pul, Hyderabad. The rent reserved was payable in quarterly instalments of Rs. 9,000 each the first instalment to commence from one year after the lessees are put in vacant possession of the premises; and out of the amount of Rs. 40,000 paid as advance, Rupees 3,000 per quarter is to be adjusted towards rent from the date the lessees have to pay the quarterly instalments of rent. Clause 5 of the lease deed is as follows:-"the lessees have obtained the premises on lease inter alia for constructing thereon a building or buildings, which are valued at approximately Rs. 6 lakhs. In pursuance of this purpose the lessors hereby further covenant that the lessees will have liberty to demolish the existing structures on the premises if necessary and construct the building or buildings on the premises in any manner whatsoever the lessees think proper. The lessees covenant with the lessors that they shall spend not less than rupees six lakhs on such construction during the terms of the lease provided that the lessees will not undertake to demolish any of the existing structures unless and until they have, prior to such demolition, constructed a building or buildings not less in value than the structure proposed to be demolished. "

( 3 ) IN the reference to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the Inspector-General of Registration and Stamps had expressed the view that the lease deed which is for an annual rental of Rs. 36,000 and for an advance of Rs. 40,000 is chargeable with duty under Articles 31 (a) (vi) and 31 (c) read with Art. 20 of Sch. I-A of the Stamp Act as applicable to Andhra Pradesh. He has also expressed a doubt whether the investment of Rs. 6 lakhs by the lessees can be treated as premium and stamp duty charged on it in addition to that chargeable on the annual rent reserved and the advance paid. The order of reference by the Board discloses that arguments were addressed by the Advocate for the lessee and the Government Pleader on the question whether the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs which is required to be spent on new structures on the premises leased during the lease term is a premium within the meaning of S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Government Pleader argued before it that it is not and supported the Advocate for the lessees on the point that it is only chargeable with a duty of Rs. 1. 50 under Art. 5 (c) of Sch. I-A of the Stamp Act, as an agreement not otherwise provided for. The Board, however, was"of the view that the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs which amount would be invested in the new buildings is a premium within the meaning of S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act as the premises would be conveyed to the lessors without any compensation at the end of lease period and that the difference alone between Rs. 6 lakhs and the value of the existing buildings which may or may not be demolished for the reason that if at all any building or buildings are demolished another new building or building













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top