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

1984 Supreme(Kar) 181

Karnataka High Court
V.Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Registrar, Hiriyur - Respondent
Decided On : 08-17-84
CRI.REF.CASE : 11 of 1981

Advocates:
H.R.VENKATASAMANIAH, M.RAVIPRAKASH, R.P.HIREMATH

The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between rent reserved and consideration for the lease, and the implications of advance payment on stamp duty classification.

Headnote:

Stamp Duty - Lease Deed - Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, S. 54 - Art. 30 (c) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, S. 54, S. 33, S. 39, S. 30 (c), S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act - The court discussed the interpretation of the lease deed and the payment of advance rent, distinguishing between rent reserved and consideration for the lease. The court referred to the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act to determine the nature of the payment and its implications for stamp duty.

Fact of the Case:

The Managing Director of a company presented a lease deed for registration, but the Sub-Registrar impounded the document and levied stamp duty and penalty. The case was referred to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, seeking opinion on whether the advance payment of rent in the lease deed should be construed as money advanced and charged stamp duty accordingly.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- before the commencement of the lease period was in the nature of premium as defined under S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and also akin to money advanced in addition to the rent reserved. The court held that the case is covered under Art. 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act and answered the reference accordingly.

Issues: Interpretation of the lease deed regarding the advance payment of rent and its classification for stamp duty purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and S. 105 of the Transfer of Property Act to distinguish between rent reserved and consideration for the lease, ultimately determining the nature of the advance payment and its implications for stamp duty.

Final Decision: The court held that the advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the lease deed was in the nature of premium and akin to money advanced in addition to the rent reserved, and therefore, the case is covered under Art. 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act.

SABHAHIT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under S. 54 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (Act No. 34 of 1957), made by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to this Court stating the case referred and seeking for the opinion thereon of this Court.

( 2 ) THE Managing Director of M/s. Bangalore Trading and Financing Corporation (Private) Limited, Bangalore, presented a lease deed dated 12-2-1981 executed by him on the same day in favour of M/s. Vanivilas Co--operative Sugar Factory Limited, Hiriyur, Chitradurga District, before the Sub-Registrar, Hiriyur, for registration. The Sub-Registrar impounded the document and in exercise of powers vested with him under S. 33 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), issued notice to the presentant directing him to pay stamp duty of Rs. 11,200/- and, on hearing, levied stamp duty and penalty of Rs. 5/- under the provisions of S. 39 of the Act, by his order dated 6-3-1981. Aggrieved by the said order of the Sub-Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, Hiriyur, the party preferred an appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority on 10-7-1981. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority took the case on file and issued notice to the presentant on 24-7-1981 fixing the date of hearing on 27-7-1981. On the said date, the Advocate for the petitioner appeared and argued the case submitting that he was liable to pay stamp duty of Rs. 56,000/- only under Art. 30 (a) (iii.) read with Art. 20 of the Schedule to the Act and that the Sub-Registrar wrongly interpreted the document for the purpose of stamp duty. As the Authority felt that the issue involved a substantial question of law, he has made the present reference to this Court under S. 54 (1) of the Act.

( 3 ) IN the opinion of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, the recitals in the lease deed show that the lease is for a period of ten years reserving annual rent of Rs. 8,00,000/- and providing for the payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards rent in advance, The question is whether the advance payment of Rs. 8,00,000/- is to be construed as advance for the purpose of stamp duty in addition to the rent reserved, attracting stamp duty under Art. 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act as a lease for money advanced. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has opined that in view of the words 'or for money advanced' in Art. 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act, the payment of rent in advance has to be construed as money advanced and the lease deed is chargeable accordingly. As, however, he was not free from doubt, he has referred the following' questions for the opinion of this Court:- (1) Whether the rent paid in advance is to be construed as money advanced in addition to tent reserved? (2) Whether the advance paid in a lease deed adjustable fully or partially or at the end of the lease period towards rent is to be considered as premium/money advanced in addition to the rent reserved and charged the stamp duty under Art. 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act? (3) If the document does not fall under any of the categories aforesaid, then what is the correct nature of the deed and what stamp duty is payable thereon?

( 4 ) THE short question, therefore, that arises for our consideration in this reference is: 'whether the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- paid in advance under the terms of the lease deed is advance payment of rent reserved or it is premium or money advanced for the granting of the lease?'

( 5 ) BEFORE we look at the lease deed, it would be convenient to notice briefly the law pertaining to the concept of fine or premium or money advanced, as contemplated under Art. 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act.

( 6 ) ARTICLE 30 (c) of the Schedule to the Act reads:"where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced in addition to rent reserved. The same duty as a conveyance (No. 20) for a market value equal to the amount or value of such fine or premium or advance as set forth in lease, in addition to the duty which woul

























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