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

2023 Supreme(Del) 4983

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Sh. Dinesh Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Mukesh Kapoor & Ors. – Respondents
CS(OS) 209 of 2017
Decided On : 30-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Praveen Mahajan & Mr. Abhinav Chauhan, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate, for the Defendants.
Ms. Pavitra Kaur, Advocate, for GNCTD.

The main legal point established is that a decree on a compromise concerning immovable property may not require registration or stamp duty under specific provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act.

Headnote:

Delay Condonation - Application for Decree Sheet - Registration Act, 1908, Section 17(2)(vi), Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - The court allowed the condonation of delay in refiling the application and directed the Registry to prepare the decree sheet without requiring payment of stamp duty, citing relevant provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed an application seeking condonation of delay in refiling another application for directing the Registry to prepare a decree sheet without requiring payment of stamp duty. The suit property was decreed in terms of a Settlement Agreement, and the plaintiff sought a direction to recall a communication calling for property valuation and prepare the decree sheet without stamp duty.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Settlement Agreement did not effect a partition of the property, but acknowledged each party's share and directed the Registry to prepare the decree sheet without stamp duty, citing relevant provisions of the Registration Act and the Stamp Act.

Issues: Delay condonation, preparation of decree sheet without stamp duty, interpretation of Settlement Agreement, applicability of Registration Act and Stamp Act provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decree did not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act and was not an 'instrument of partition' under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act, based on precedents and legal interpretations.

Final Decision: The application for delay condonation was allowed, and the Registry was directed to prepare the decree sheet without requiring payment of stamp duty.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

I.A. 4773/2021(Condonation of delay in refiling I.A. 4772/2021)

This is an application on behalf of the plaintiff seeking condonation of delay of 7 days in refiling I.A. 4772/2021.

For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay in refiling I.A. 4772/2021 is condoned.

I.A. 4772/2021 (Application on behalf of the plaintiff for directing the Registry to withdraw their letter dated 24.09.2019 and prepare decree sheet in terms of the order dated 01.08.2019 without requiring the parties to file stamp duty)

1. The captioned suit was filed for partition of a property bearing No. A-278, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 ["the suit property"]. It was decreed on 01.08.2019 in terms of a Settlement Agreement dated 10.07.2019. The plaintiff has filed this application for a direction upon the Registry to recall a communication dated 24.09.2019, addressed to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, calling for a valuation of the property, and for a direction that the decree sheet be drawn up [pursuant to the order dated 01.08.2019] without payment of stamp duty.

2. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the Settlement Agreement dated 10.07.2019 did not effect a partition of the suit property. Instead, the parties acknowledged each others' 1/5th share in the suit property. The parties agreed to sell the suit property and share the proceeds in this proportion. The decree was passed in terms thereof. The relevant clause of the Settlement Agreement are reproduced below:

    "6. The following settlement has been arrived at between the Parties hereto:

    a. It has been agreed between the parties that all the parties have equal share in the suit property and they shall sell the suit property jointly within a period of six months from the final decree/disposal of the suit and sale proceeds so received, shall be distributed in equal shares i.e. 1/5th share to each of them."

3. Learned counsel for the parties submit that a decree in these terms is not registerable under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act, 1908 ["the Registration Act"] and is also not susceptible to stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 ["the Stamp Act"]. They refer to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 20.11.1987 in P.K. Nangia vs. Land & Development Officer, 1987 SCC OnLine Del 421 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.02.2012 in Razia Begum vs. Mohd. Ilyas, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1015.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also addressed a communication dated 14.01.2020 to the Registrar (Original) in this connection. In fact, the Registrar has written a further communication dated 30.01.2020 to the concerned Sub-Divisional Magistrate for this purpose, in which it is inter alia stated that a decree of partition requires to be stamped under Section 2(15) of the Stamp Act, but for preparation of a decree of declaration, the applicant has been requested to file an application on the judicial side.

5. Although the suit was filed for partition of the suit property, it is clear from the Settlement Agreement dated 10.07.2019 that no partition was ultimately effected and the parties have, in fact, acknowledged each other's share in the suit property.

6. In the present case, the decree is one on a compromise, but concerns an immovable property which was the subject matter of the suit. The present decree is therefore not registrable as it falls under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act. Section 17, to the extent it is relevant, provides as follows:

    "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.-(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely-

    (a) instruments of gif

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