Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 792
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATES OF TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. UMA DEVI, JJ.
Suram Bapu Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Janagam Laxmi - Respondent
C.R.P. No. 5658 of 2017
Decided On : 20-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ravulapati Srinivasa Rao
For the Respondents: Bankatlal Mandhani
Headnote:
Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 2(10) – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 21(1) – Admissibility of unstamped and unregistered copy of award – Challenging Trial Court Order – Unable to agree with opinion made by learned Judge in Ayitham Venkaiah v. Ayitham Surya Bhaskara Rao (2006 (4) ALT 305) Challenged on question of admissibility of an unstamped and unregistered copy of award of Legal Services Authority, a learned Judge has referred matter on hand to Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement – Held, Refund of Court Fee is provided under Section 21(1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is no ground to extend same benefit to stamp duty payable under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Even a declaratory decree may not be admissible in evidence except when it is duly stamped and registered – Learned Judge committed mistake in trying to interpret Section 2(10) of Stamp Act on basis of statement of objects and reasons for State amendment – In fiscal Statute, one has to go by plain language – If document falls within description, it may not be open to Court to find out whether such a document was intended to be covered by amendment, by looking at statement of objects and reasons – Therefore, decision of learned Judge in Ayitham Venkaiah does not reflect correct position – Order of Trial Court is liable to be upheld and revision dismissed (Para 31, 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Question that arises in this appeal is that , learned Judge in Ayitham Venkaiah v. Ayitham Surya Bhaskara Rao (2006 (4) ALT 305) Challenged on question of admissibility of an unstamped and unregistered copy of award of Legal Services Authority, a learned Judge has referred matter on hand to Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement
Findings of the case:
Refund of Court Fee is provided under Section 21(1) of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, is no ground to extend same benefit to stamp duty payable under Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Even a declaratory decree may not be admissible in evidence except when it is duly stamped and registered – Learned Judge committed mistake in trying to interpret Section 2(10) of Stamp Act on basis of statement of objects and reasons for State amendment – In fiscal Statute, one has to go by plain language – If document falls within description, it may not be open to Court to find out whether such a document was intended to be covered by amendment, by looking at statement of objects and reasons – Therefore, decision of learned Judge in Ayitham Venkaiah does not reflect correct position
Result: Order of Trial Court is liable to be upheld and revision dismissed
ORDER :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Unable to agree with the opinion of a learned Judge made in Ayitham Venkaiah v. Ayitham Surya Bhaskara Rao (2006 (4) ALT 305) on the question of admissibility of an unstamped and unregistered copy of the award of the Legal Services Authority, a learned Judge has referred the matter on hand to the Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
2. Heard Mr. Srinivasa Rao Ravulapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bankathlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the respondent.
Brief facts
3. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S. No. 50 of 2011 for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property, which is described an agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 9.26 guntas in Survey Nos. 130/A of Munipally village, H/o. Chinthagattu, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District.
4. In the suit, the 1st defendant filed a written statement claiming that the suit schedule property belonged to one Suram Linga Reddy, the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 and that the property was delivered in favour of the 1st defendant, by virtue of an award passed by the Lok Adalat in a suit in O.S. No. 1679 of 2004 instituted by one of the sons of the paternal uncle.
5. After the evidence on the side of the plaintiff was over, the 1st defendant filed his affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. Thereafter, the 1st defendant attempted to mark as Ex. A.1, a copy of the award passed on 09-03-2005 by the Lok Adalat in O.S. No. 1679 of 2004. The marking of the document was objected to on the ground that the same was not duly stamped and registered under the Indian Stamp Act and the Indian Registration Act, despite the document containing recitals about the relinquishment of rights over an immovable property. The objection was upheld by the trial Court and the 1st defendant was given time to make payment of stamp duty and penalty, with a rider that the document could be marked only for collateral purpose, as the non-registration was an incurable defect. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st defendant came up with the above revision.
6. When the above Civil Revision Petition came up before a learned Judge of this Court, the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of a learned Judge of this Court in Ayitham Venkaiah v. Ayitham Surya Bhaskara Rao (2006 (4) ALT 305). In the said decision, the learned Judge held that the amended Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act, would apply only to decrees obtained from Civil Courts, which include a direction to effect mutation in the revenue records and that the decrees obtained in the normal course are not amenable to stamp duty under the Stamp Act as a 'conveyance'.
7. But the learned Judge before whom the above revision petition came up for hearing, was unable to agree with the interpretation given in Ayitham Venkaiah to the definition of the word "conveyance" appearing in Section 2(10) of the Stamp Act. The learned Judge felt that the legislative intent was to make every compromise decree or award amenable to stamp duty and registration, whenever there was transfer of interest in immovable property. Therefore, the learned Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench and hence, the revision petition had been placed before us.
Contentions
8. Placing strong reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Ruby Sales and Services (P) Ltd., v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 1 SCC 531 and State of Uttranchal (now State of Uttarakhand) v. Khurana Brothers (2010) 14 SCC 334 : 2011 (4) ALT 30.2 (DN SC), the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the law laid down in Ayitham Venkaiah may not be correct and that once the Legislature has specifically included every decree of a court by which any property is transferred, within the definition of the expression "conveyance", there is no scope for a different conclusion.
9. We have carefully con
