IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
A.D. Mane, J.
Balasaheb s/o. Sahebrao Jadhav .... Petitioner.
Versus
Hanumant s/o. Bhaurao Deshmukh .... Respondent.
Civil Revision Application No. 1314 of 1993, decided on 12-1-1995.
Advocates appeared :
V.G. Mete, for the petitioner.
P.G. Gunale, for the respondent.
The trial Judge has totally misread the provision of Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1938. Article 25 applies only in. a case where property is transferred to any person. The explanation to Article 25 and the proviso thereto also presupposes that the property must be transferred in accordance with law.
It is elementary that sale is a transfer of property for price paid or promised to pay or part paid and part promised to pay but a contract for sale of an immoveable property is a contract for the sale of such property which takes places on the terms settled between the parties. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that the contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property. Therefore, the agreement or the contract for sale is a document which falls outside. Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act.
2. It may be stated that the learned trial Judge has totally misread the provision of Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. Article 25 applies only in a case where property is transferred to any person. The explanation to Article 25 and the proviso thereto also presupposes that the property must be transferred in accordance with law. It is elementary that sale is a transfer of property for price paid or promised to pay or part paid and part promised to pay but a contract for sale of an immoveable property is a contract for the sale of such property which takes place on the terms settled between the parties. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act clearly provides that the contract for sale does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on the property. Therefore, the agreement or the contract for sale is a document which falls outside Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act. The learned trial Judge has, therefore, committed a clearly an error of law in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is therefore, quashed and set-aside. The revision application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial Court shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible.
Revision allowed.
*****
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.